@sentry_co Andre! This is unrelated, so I'll keep it brief but to your question. We're sort of building an LLM of our own. There are pre-beta trials running right now, and Beta should be available for US customers in mid-September. If you're interested, head over to crucnhit.ai and sign up for the waitlist or else ping me on Linkedin and I'll be happy to help :)

@uma_venugopal I would have loved to have worked in a founder's office role at a young startup somewhere for even six months so that I had more clarity on how VCs evaluate ideas. Course and blogs on these, or as was true in my case, working with late-stage VCs is a very different game altogether. It would have helped me fast-track things at my own startup.

@fabiosalvadori Fabio, I think about these points slightly differently. VCs understand how teams are built and the hustle you're going through. In fact, it strengthens the pitch if you can tell them how you have achieved what you have without a team and why you need funds to scale further. That said, identifying candidates who are going to be your first hires is also equally critical. Investors are human beings, and most of them have worked with a lot of people who have done what you're doing. Trust them :) CAGR for 2030 is not ideal. It's 7 years down the line. Mentioning it does not harm you, but it doesn't answer anything either, and no investor is going to pay much weight to these predictions. That said if you're dealing with a market where the prediction is not easy because it's immature, you can have approximations and state the fact that these are approximations clearly. Investors again understand this and as much as people go bragging about templates and must have slides in your deck, no big raise follows a template necessarily.

@the_robogram Hey! I'm happy to help, and I do a fundraising course that looks at the entire cycle end-to-end. A new one is launching, and you're free to add your thoughts to the course planning survey: https://maven.com/forms/0b2a40 At one point, I was doing these calls free of cost. Conversations like these are very draining and time-intensive, and that is why I'm doing this AMA. If you have any questions, I can help with them directly. I've burnt my hand doing candid chats, and it leaves you burnt out. So, instead of engaging in candid conversations, I prefer only paid conversations where I bring insane value over to you in an hour-long call. This helps me filter the noise.

@nimishg Good question, Nimish. Funding is always an option, and though I help people who are raising, I always try asking really tough questions to change their find from going for a fundraise when there is not a good reason to. This has nothing to do with moat but everything to do with what you truly need. I would encourage checking my answer to @theterminalguy (second comment in this thread)

@david_mcanulty This is easy First: Is the opportunity big enough? (The market is new and worth exploring, and if the market is well-defined, can another idea grow to over 200-300 Mi in ARR). This point will get you their attention. Second: Your background and vision. Once you have my attention, I will evaluate if you're the best person to solve it and if you have a vision and a clear-cut, actionable path to hit the same. Third: Your energy. This is the most important part. A lot of times, points one and two are useless, and the majority of the startups end up pivoting as they realize difficulties in scaling up. These points combined will get you in the room with the investor. Point 1 is mostly based on the investor's knowledge but can be influenced by how you lay the elevator pitch. Point 2 is consistent performance, peer feedback etc. and investors are really god at evaluating this without your knowledge too, many times.

@yashvardhan_chauhan1 Yash, playbooks are worth peanuts until you succeed anyway. In the first venture around DAOs, the market was so new that we were embracing uncertainty every step of the way. We started with a digital-first approach of creating awareness, only to realize that the best way to learn, build and grow was to hang out in the circles of DAO enthusiasts which are mostly based out of the US. In the current startup, what we're building is a SAAS offering. the technology is new, but the good news is that there are benchmarks to evaluate our efforts against at the very least. In both the cases what has remained true is building based on user feedback because in both scenarios what we started with and what we're building now is drastically different.

@theterminalguy Thanks Simon. This is a great question, and I think more and more people need to see it as a conditional spectrum. I'll answer briefly first and then elaborate. The condition is you should raise when it's needed, and I'm assuming you're asking in the context of the first raise for any founder. Once these conditions are met, the spectrum is money vs. right partner. We need to find a balance between the funds raised and the right partner. Now I'll elaborate. It is essential to understand that raised funds DO NOT bring comfort, and in the early stages, the valuation is as good as a piece of paper about to be discarded. Investors act as anchors, and they're in the game for 100X returns. The way to hit those 100X returns is by doubling down on winners (most investors maintain their ownership in subsequent rounds) and increasing the number of potentially good bets (betting on more founders through small checks). Because in the early stages, the outcomes are theoretical without much proof, any investor will seek substantial ownership from you so that it's worth their time, and the help will not be building the business for you but instead nudges that keep you on track. How do you know you're ready? - Your product has signs of PMF, and things are going to the state where a bigger team will help you grow faster. You need funds to pay them. - You're entering a new market and need funds to validate. The idea is worth pursuing as it may potentially be a multi-billion dollar idea. In this case, the investor senses a missed opportunity if they do not back you, and their backing is just them diversifying their investments. - You're revenue positive, but the investor has a track record of working with brands like you and unlocking 100X growth. In this case, the investor usually has a great network, such as a Y-combinator. What is a suitable dilution? - In the spectrum of money and the right partner, you should always lean more towards the right partner, even if that means a smaller raise. Good investors also understand this, and they come at a price. But they more than compensate for it with subsequent raises or business growth nudges. So, always lean on good partners. - Now, good investors need decent skin in the game. Otherwise, they will not be bothered enough. - This skin in the game is also broadly defined by factors such as opportunity size, competition in that opportunity, and likelihood of success (founder quality, tech moat etc.) If you have an upper hand, you can squeeze more for less dilution. If you don't have a strong moat, you should go with more dilution. Fundraising is never to get into a comfort zone because now you have a name associated with you. It never makes things easy. The best outcome in most scenarios is no raise!

@manas_tripathi Hey Manas! I've answered this question above as well in response to @theterminalguy. I'll add just one more. Building a business is equally hard, with or without funds. Funds are, instead, the more straightforward thing. Very few entrepreneurs who are likely to make it big and never manage to raise. There have been outliers like Airbnb, Starbucks etc but they are still a tiny tiny tiny fraction. You should find your own lane and give your everything to it. The outcome will either be a really successful company or an individual who will kick ass.

@manas_tripathi @theterminalguy @viks_rum Hi Vikram, Great to see you giving prompt response. One follow up question. Let’s say your team believe in your idea and have come forward to put their hands together to build for customers. Now you started building for your customers and investors will find you. But where the initial money come from? As you need them for the infra and other tools you use.

@manas_tripathi @theterminalguy @sagan_tech This is the dilemma of the ages. You could risk it all (also defined as the entrepreneurial risk and often phrased as burning the ship. It can backfire, ofcourse, but that is why not everyone is an entrepreneur. Alternatively, if you have the right history and track record, you can go the VC route. Even if they don't help you build, VC money can help you explore, but only if you're grounded and not looking at it as a luxury. Whatever funds you raise, you have to operate with extreme discipline and a mindset that you did not actually raise enough. VCs love funding teams that have a track record and who go out and try new things because every once in a while, a new big idea that seems unreal comes to fruition because somebody put their money behind you. Sometimes, people go for a third route. Friends and Family round where you get enough fuel to sustain. This is how most of the big companies in silicon valley emerged. On a closing note, more than often, it is the founder putting their hard-earned money. This is precisely why it's justified for the founders to also have an exceptional return.

@anav_sawhney I'm not sure I entirely get your question, Anav. However if ypu're asling whether I am bullish on NLP based UI/UX, the answer is yes and no both. Thanks to Chat GPT, a lot of simpler UXes are being positioned to have a chat format, and it's just bad. On the other end, some UXes can be pretty powerful because of NLP more so when you evaluate the work of companies like Cohere. As fas as analytics goes, asking questions is touch using NLP but not always. We also need to note that people don't know what they don't know. Some use cases are best served with NLP-based querying and some others are best served with clicks. So I would always root for a hybrid offering.

@balamurali This is a brilliant question, Balamurali. The early stage is all about building, and in SAAS, engineering should be the most of the effort. I would have 60-70% engineers, 10-20% designers and 10-20% GTM folks. GTM involves sales, marketing and content. Founders should do most of the marketing, lead-gen, product management, sales as well and customer support themselves. QA should be left to engineers, and so should customer support time and again (It helps devs understand how people feel about their product). Once PMF is hit, it makes sense to scale all other functions, but SAAS companies benefit disproportionately with an R&D edge.

@ilijarolovic Hahahaha! Good one, and there is a fine line. I've seen founders become friends with best investors whom they never hoped to speak with through snail mails, and I've also seen some responses where these mails were seen as disrespecting the personal space the investor enjoys. However, I prefer the digital medium given that most professional attention today is digital. If anyone reading this is thinking about snail mail, they should ensure that the investor has a track record of receiving those interruptions in a good way.

@pkpio This has already been answered above in the question by @candi_forbes. Let me know if your query is still unanswered.

@nayan_kulshreshtha This is a great question! I always recommend founders to: - not stick to templates if they don't feel their story gets communicated well through the templates. - not ignore their elevator pitches. Elevator pitches help a lot depending on real-time interruptions, which more than often arise while pitching. - not lay out a grand vision forcibly but shoot for the moon when it makes sense. - not pitch when it feels artificial. Founders should pitch what they truly feel energized about, not what sells easier. - not messing up through complex analogies and keeping it simple. The evaluator is a human being. Talk logically, and they will always see things reasonably. - not fake confidence to the extent where they stop listening to real feedback or real signals. Founders need to communicate what they feel adds value really well. They need storytelling abilities for the same. A good pitch deck always helps, but that's when you have a good background yourself. You and your idea should feel like a match made in heaven. Thereafter they need to be relentless and forceful.

@mukund_chourey This is a very undefined question. The only true boundary should be needed. Startups with 50 employees before a product can be understaffed as well at times, and startups with 10 employees can have over 10 billion in valuation. Smaller teams are more effective, but not at the cost of sanity. In my view, a good stretch is always having borderline discomfort in everyone (good stress) solving for problems that will be aspirational enough in 5 years. The exact number can vary.

@anjanay_saxena, this is a question I can't answer in one thread. I have published several threads over this on my Linkedin (link in my profile), and I have a course coming up again (https://maven.com/forms/0b2a40) on this, but to those who're reading this, I'll drop one link that has helped me a lot when it comes to stories. It's from the SAAS giant, Salesforce: https://highalpha.com/the-second...

@sumit_sharma29 I see your DM, and I've replied there as well, but for everyone else following this thread, Crunch gives users the freedom to select what data gets captured and tracked. On-prem and other off-prem safety measures are also in place and getting more defined as the product hits more users everyday :)

@yash_binani Good question, Yash and I think the first point below is the one and only true learning that I would ask people to care about. I've laid down two other realizations. 1. Never set out to build the community. Care for people and the community builds itself. Give and give and your get back more and more. 2. Communities are like a date you're trying to impress. It needs constant effort, and you can not fake it. Make it fun. 3. Communities come with lots of learning and surprises. We often overestimate what we as individuals can do and underestimate what we as a community can achieve.

@john_lim_my We were building for a new market, we had done the homework and many things aligned in terms of timing, our backgrounds, the domain, etc. We ended up getting a 4.6X commit in under a week. I have been able to replicate this with a few founders but as I said, it depends on a lot of factors. That said, for most founders, I have worked with, the first commit has usually come within the first 4-5 presentations, barring a couple.