←back to thread

655 points louis-paul | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
tmpz22 ◴[] No.43624557[source]
If they had taken just say $40 million would they be able to sustain their project for the foreseeable future and perhaps not yield as much future product direction and equity?

I honestly don't know how this big dealmaking works but it strikes me that when you take out this big of an obligation that the obligation has a gravity that may drag you in a direction you (or consumers) do not want to go.

Love Tailscale as a product (as does everyone I talk to) but genuinely want to learn more about the trade-offs as usually when we see big dollar signs all we do is celebrate.

replies(6): >>43624690 #>>43625018 #>>43625510 #>>43626138 #>>43626140 #>>43626489 #
vvpan ◴[] No.43625018[source]
One of the main problems with raising too much is that you stop caring about product-market fit and can go on tangents that do not make you competitive. This is quiet common afaik.
replies(2): >>43625224 #>>43625814 #
peterlk ◴[] No.43625224[source]
Yes; you will burn through all the capital you raise in ~18 months. It is _extremely_ difficult to efficiently allocate large raises (100M+) in 18 months. In fact, I’m developing a pet thesis that no single human or business can efficiently allocate more than $100M. This would imply that any time a single raise is more than 100M, the investors always would have had a better return by splitting it into chunks of 100M or less. It’s not a _good_ thesis yet, just one I’m performing thought experiments with
replies(6): >>43625310 #>>43625493 #>>43625804 #>>43626052 #>>43626511 #>>43626546 #
1. ◴[] No.43626052[source]