Loading ...Incredible number of companies funded in the web 2.0 space. See this link
Search
Meta Information
Category List
- Ecosystem (98)
- General (340)
- Humor (12)
- Ideas & Companies (128)
- Interviews (17)
- Musings (69)
- News/ Events (115)
- Process Maze (21)
Authors
Monthly Archive
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
Links
Blogroll
Web 2.0 may not be a bubble yet, but there are intriguing, if not troubling, signs that the inmates want to take over the prison. Calls to remove VCs from the formula has some merit but it assumes investors in a publicly-traded venture company will have faith that the people running it are smarter than VCs.
So, who are these people and what makes them more insightful than VCs? Before anyone gets carried away about turfing VCs from the equation, let’s concede there is a role for VCs within Web 2.0 but it will have to evolve because many start-ups don’t need much of what the biggest thing VCs bring to the table: money. Given development and distribution costs are modest, and the best services will market themselves virally, where is the VC’s value that will get them a piece of the action?
Of course, there could be many people trying to figure that out. It may be that VCs “invest” in start-ups in different ways by offering services such as networking, headhunting, technical, marketing etc. as well as a small amount of capital ($1-million to $5-million). Rather than getting a 30% equity stake out of the gate, they would get 5%. And rather than investing in four or five start-ups a year, they would invest in 10 to 20 companies. As a result, the name of the game would be deal-flow. This new landscape would make competition for deals extremely competitive, which would be good news for start-ups who could choose their potential partners carefully. In other words, it could totally reverse the courting rules. The big question is which VC steps up first to seize the opportunity?
Maybe it won’t be a VC because it’s too dramatic of a shift to do quickly. It could even be one among us – if backed by some institutional or high net-worth money. What about some known Angels ? Got enough cash, energy, ideas and an appetite for start-ups to pull it off ? Maybe someone will walk the walk, rather than talking the talk by tapping some of the money sloshing around in the Valley these days. Or maybe it will be someone who has the required rebel DNA and oodles of cash/stock to finance something disruptive (I assume some rookie VC would throw in a few bucks and ideas.) So who’s game?