Gimmicky isht like this is never a good sign
1/ Some signs to look for that suggest your startup equity won't be worth shit
(note: there are probably exceptions but generally, these will steer you right)
Gimmicky isht like this is never a good sign
That's ok at the early stages but eventually you gotta build some shit for customers
If you're bragging about your investors at Series B, C, the actual biz model is fundraising
This is co revenue / total raised
Esp problematic as companies get more mature
The best companies are machines at turning $ raised into revenue at some point
Bit more here https://t.co/xo0rNZ631n
Some SaaS revenue/raise ratios of cos (anonymized) who've raised in last 3 months.
— Anand Sanwal (@asanwal) November 30, 2018
Collaboration software = 0.25-0.37x
Research & data analytics = 0.28x
Biz Intelligence = 0.12x
Some comparison points
Domo pre-IPO = 0.16x
Tableau (at IPO) = 8.51x
Frothy out there or rational?
In 2020, they said they'd do $25M in revenue to a journalist
In 2021, tell other journo they did $15M in 2020 and are expecting $50M in 2021
Beware of team good at storytelling but who stink at actual delivery
Personal brand building founders trying to be 'gurus' are almost always a total dumpster fire
These folks aren't actually motivated by the problem they're solving. They just see an opportunity for a quick flip
They'll get bored when the momentum dies and then they'll pivot to web3
https://t.co/46NzVF6Gu5
10000%
— Anand Sanwal (@asanwal) January 28, 2022
There are going to be a ton of folks whose options are dead money cuz the 409a is very close to preferred share price AND the preferred share price is just too damn high
If joining a startup, heed this advice https://t.co/tuKcwGEvm8
https://t.co/VF2ySmZb7k
Your startup has more than 5 people
— Anand Sanwal (@asanwal) December 12, 2021
Here's 18 things you can do in 2022 to screw it up
Want your startup to end 2022 weaker than when you started?
Follow these tips
\U0001f9f5 (ya, I know)
You May Also Like
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.
Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.
6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices
https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x
PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.
735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices
https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ
The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.
The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.
Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.
6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices
https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x
PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.
735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices
https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ
The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.
The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.