img

Why do VCs rebrand?

Why do US VCs like Sequoia and Mattix rebrand to PeakXV and Z47 in India? Is this just a politically correct way of exiting the market after realising India is not doing well for them? https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/29/matrix-rebrands-india-china-units-for-organizational-independence/

img

VioletMovie

Accenture

2 months ago

Sign in to a Grapevine account for the full experience.

Discover More

Curated from across

img

Office Gossip on

by GloomyCent67

MakemyTrip

Some observations after 10+ years of being in the system

- Most VCs are fraud, they never make any money and keep shifting from one fund to another to hide that they never made anyone any money. They also have usually no real input to add. They are no subject matter except negotiations which too mostly they just prey upon any founders. It's a thankless asset class. Most founders will always hate it as they will never get a dollar and most investors hate it as they will never net a dollar. Never chase VC, they are supposed to find opportunity .. Chasing them is useless, they judge you for it. So treat them from first day like your ex. Gf/bf. - Most tech startup founders are fraud, they never make any money and keep shifting from one idea to another to hide they never made anyone any money. it usually takes 20 years to make a real $100 million dollar revenue company, but 20 months to be a unicorn. Any unicorn today is priced according to what they would make after 5-10 years... Yeah right. - Making real money is hard. Making fake money is easy. 99% of startup Esops are fraud If the company is homerun, then they won't get you stock easy. If the company is maybe homerun, they won't give you cash easily. If you get free cash and esops, just imagine it's an 18 month project. - Most of the humblebrags are fraud as half of them don't even understand the fine print of what they think is real money but not. - Most of the people who usually ask for change have no intention for it. They want to be seen as leaders, change is hard, negotiated and cried for. - you only live once. Go hard.. No one like people who have too much to talk but nothing to show.

img

Indian Startups on

by salt

Gojek

[Rant] Here's why someone usually ends up f'ed over, for a startup to get successful in India

There are essentially four parties in the startup economy: 1. The Consumer 2. The Enabler(read, Startup) 3. The Service Provider 4. The Investor Now let's look at Game Theory motivations: 1. The Indian Consumer wants to minimise money spent per unit value extracted, the Western Consumer wants to maximise value extracted per unit money spent. (There's a massive difference.) 2. The Startup depending on the stage wants to maximise User Growth and Free Cash Flows. 3. The Service provider wants to maximise financial incentives. 4. The Investor is wants to maximise the XIRR of their fund. For this they need to reach a multibagger liquidity event. Now let's look at what happens when: 1. The Consumer gets f'ed over: The startup attains pricing power through deep competitive moats allowing for monopolisation. They can jack up the prices to ensure nice FCF, greater rewards for Service Providers and great returns to their investors. (Think, Uber can charge anything to you now) 2. The Startup gets f'ed over: The users get bang for their buck, the service providers get good incentives, the investors push for higher growth but unfortunately the startup does not have enough capital to service their Cost of Operations through their unit economics, so they will either run out of cash or investor patience. Either ways, they are doomed. (Think every legit startup that failed) 3. The Service Provider get f'ed over: This is the likeliest scenario as they have the least power in this dynamic. Rewards will be reduced over time or made harder to achieve. They have no option because they got no option for sustenance. (Think any on-demand service providing app) 4. The investor gets f'ed over: Now imagine there is a startup that can balance the act very well. They have a service that users are willing to pay a margin on. They pay their service providers fairly and have decent unit economics. Now, the investor will do halla about destruction of shareholder value from little growth. (Is this the case with BluSmart?) Maybe that's why building in India is tough.

img