|
|
|
|
|
|
by solarmist
1623 days ago
|
|
|
What's not true? It seems correct to me. You're just providing an alternate scenario that isn't as favorable. And since the initial $125k implicitly has a $2m valuation attached to it, if you raise again at $3.75m, then that's probably not ideal. So a sensible approach would be to view this as providing an implicit minimum value to target for your next round, i.e., >$5m (7.5%). |
|
|