Is "pre-revenue" still the VC goal?
Shared by AndyDent-Touchgram · 6d ago · 11 comments

Someone recently referred to the iconic "Silicon Valley" clip about not having revenue because your company then becomes much less attractive to investors.

After I finished laughing at this reminder, I wondered: is this trope still true (if it ever was)?

Or, are we now in an era where investors expect revenue plans or paths to monetisation early?

Do attitudes vary depending on your location? · 5d ago

Every potential investor I've spoken to has told me to come back when I have SOME revenue.

AndyDent-Touchgram · 5d ago

Yeah, that definitely seems to be the Aussie attitude. Were they all locals? I've not had serious investment conversations with anyone, not initiating them until have some decent traction hopefully starting in the next month as our long-awaited v1.3 hits the store and then go into rapid-update-UI mode.

kendsouza · 5d ago

The trope is true..SV has its fair share of con artists who are good at making the 'company' itself the product and selling it. A lot of gullible investors fall for it.
e.g Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos

ArchStaton · 5d ago

e.g Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos

FYI SV investors didn't invest on this company. Wrong association.

kendsouza · 5d ago

Still selling the 'ticket' to SV under various pseudonyms? :)

"Theranos first raised money with a $500,000 seed round led by Draper Fisher Jurvetson (now called Threshold) according to Crunchbase."

ArchStaton · 5d ago

Hi Ken, I missed you :)

Again wrong conclusion. 

You are a very suspicious man, Ken. The fraud must be extremely prevalent in your place. If you haven't burned hard, then you can't be so cautious of the fire. I am just guessing. 

kendsouza · 5d ago

Never burnt...can fire burn fire?:)

ArchStaton · 5d ago

Okay, good chat!

edit: I don't know what it means. You are the fire?

kendsouza · 5d ago

yep! Happy Thanksgiving! · 6d ago

this clip is true