[pech0rin]

Shutting down without trying to spook their investors or current portfolio companies. Couching it as taking a break seems clever but I’m guessing any seasoned investors will read between the lines and see that this isn’t working.

The problem with thinking everyone else is wrong (ie how VCs operate) is that usually it turns out they are not. I’m guessing it wasn’t the story telling prowess of lack of deep connections (the common scapegoat for failing) but rather an unappealing offer for investors. Huge risks need huge returns. Bootstrapped companies may be slightly less risky but definitely less upside for investors. If there is no huge payday then investors know that capital will be used better elsewhere.

Im not hating on the thesis. Personally I like bootstrapped businesses much better but there is a reason they don’t attract investors.

[atto]

FWIW: I'm an investor in all of Calm's funds (I think I was one of the earliest investors in Fund 1), and have been quite happy with the funds themselves. They've done great — outperforming my own expectations.

As indie.vc also found, it's just hard to make these styles of funds work on the business side.

[fuzzfactor]

>read between the lines and see that this isn’t working.

No need to "read between the lines", he directly mentions some of the ways it's not working as pleasingly as he would like.

[JumpCrisscross]

> They've done great — outperforming my own expectations

TVPI, I assume?

[burutthrow1234]

> The problem with thinking everyone else is wrong is that usually it turns out they are not.

I don't know that this is objectively true. The more accurate thing to say is that sometimes it's better to be wrong in the same way as everyone else. VC investing seems to be mostly based on chasing trends and "pattern matching", so trying to do anything heterodox is going to be an uphill battle.