|
|
|
|
|
|
by vkorshin
1752 days ago
|
|
|
You know the space well and it seems like you get the vision. We've found little overlap between customers in terms of LMS. Most use spreadsheets or build something in house. I imagine this will change in the coming year or two. BTW, if anyone wants to build a universal LMS or a Plaid for LMS I think it's the right moment. We've had investors ask why Pipe doesn't just do this and we respond with, because it's a just a different beast. We currently have a fairly broad funnel but we'll be specializing more during this next growth stage. Retaining companies as they scale will be an issue, particularly at first. Once the software and marketplace are robust, we'll be able to go much further with our customers. We're trying to avoid lock-in mechanisms like ROFRs and warrants. The product is either efficient and founder friendly, or it is not. |
|
|
Canopy is a recent new entrant: https://canopyservicing.com/
Using a vendor for LMS added some complexity (integration is a pain, idempotency is a concern, etc), but it helped us focus on things that differentiate our business. We certainly wouldn't have launched five months after founding without one.
I've talked to some startups that built an in-house LMS. The moment a payment reverses or someone backdates a payment or they backdate a loan change or modify a due date... they have big problems.
> We've had investors ask why Pipe doesn't just do this and we respond with, because it's a just a different beast.
Next time they ask, ask them why Google's VC branch doesn't just take their deals :)
It's astonishing to see how some investors don't realize how deep of a field lending is.
> We're trying to avoid lock-in mechanisms like ROFRs and warrants. The product is either efficient and founder friendly, or it is not.
Nice. Godspeed!