TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Earnest Capital is live

368 点作者 tylertringas超过 6 年前

26 条评论

tylertringas超过 6 年前
Hello HN - I'm Tyler the founder of Earnest Capital. We officially went live today and I'm here for questions, comments, criticisms, whatever really.
评论 #19156827 未加载
评论 #19155690 未加载
评论 #19155573 未加载
评论 #19154304 未加载
评论 #19154420 未加载
评论 #19156117 未加载
评论 #19155964 未加载
评论 #19155918 未加载
评论 #19163412 未加载
评论 #19155781 未加载
评论 #19156527 未加载
评论 #19156689 未加载
评论 #19157041 未加载
评论 #19158459 未加载
moflome超过 6 年前
Congratulations on launching! Sounds like a nice compliment to IndieVC[0] and TinySeed [1]. I&#x27;m glad to see innovation here, interesting times!<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.indie.vc" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.indie.vc</a> - loan vs. future equity with buy-out [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tinyseed.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tinyseed.com</a> - equity with revenue share (?)
评论 #19154673 未加载
dmonn超过 6 年前
Hey Tyler! I&#x27;m actually super interested in Earnest. One thing I was thinking is, the traditional VC model works in cycles - founders raise some money, build &amp; sell, raise some more, build &amp; sell - by the time they raised $100M hopefully they are at least close to profit.<p>How does that work with bootstrappers? Ideally they&#x27;d only have to raise money once (from you), but what happens after the $100k (example) run out and the business is only generating, let&#x27;s say, $2k&#x2F;month? Back to 9-to-5?
评论 #19154583 未加载
laser超过 6 年前
In principle this seems pretty cool, but the gap between what&#x27;s communicated on the website, and what&#x27;s actually contained in the &#x27;Shared Earning Agreement&#x27; [1] makes me concerned this might be good marketing on a fundamentally predatory investment agreement. This could very well be a completely unintentional idiosyncrasy, so I don&#x27;t want to be too accusatory, but the implication of the terms needs to be laid out more clearly on the website, if this is simply an oversight.<p>The single biggest red-flag is the fact that the equity stake vests in company sale or priced-raise as unpaid return cap (a multiple of 3-5X investment) over valuation cap. What this essentially means, is that in the scenario that you raise more money or sell the company before you&#x27;ve paid off the 3-5x multiple of the investment, then the investment essentially vests as if the valuation cap was 3-5x lower than what it was actually set at.<p>This probably seems abstract, so I&#x27;ll make it vividly clear with an example. Let&#x27;s say you raise $200k on a $2 million valuation with a 5x return cap on an SEA. Business goes well, a year or two goes by, and you either sell the company or raise more capital at a $10 million valuation, having in the interim say paid off $200k of the agreement from earnings. With 4x still outstanding. Suddenly, likely to your surprise, that $800k (4x investment amount) vests into equity—at the $2 million cap from the original agreement. In other words, Earnest Capital suddenly, to your surprise, owns 40% of your company. If you hadn&#x27;t monetized at all and paid any off, this could be a full 50% stake.<p>Even if you run the numbers with the more conservative numbers in their document—is it clear to people that a $150k investment at a &quot;$3 million&quot; valuation could convert to a 15% equity stake in your company?<p>I&#x27;d love to see how this could be revised to address this issue, and I&#x27;d love to see the website more clearly communicate the equity implications. As of now, I can&#x27;t help but feel that this is double-dipping, predatory investing, that is getting heaps of praise on HN due to clever marketing around tapping into the trend of anti-VC and indie-hacking, that will ultimately lead to some very frustrating experiences for first-time entrepreneurs that didn&#x27;t fully comprehend the terms they were agreeing to.<p>Tyler—please prove me wrong and fix this thing. Or, since IANAL I may have completely misunderstood the document, in which case—screw me, my apologies—but please explain how it actually works :)<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.google.com&#x2F;document&#x2F;d&#x2F;1MoLiH_VnhX-0vfZ1zgMSfpcIt0rdyD9rc27BbypplDI&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.google.com&#x2F;document&#x2F;d&#x2F;1MoLiH_VnhX-0vfZ1zgMSfpcI...</a>
评论 #19161563 未加载
评论 #19160407 未加载
评论 #19163494 未加载
评论 #19160149 未加载
评论 #19161461 未加载
lgregg超过 6 年前
Tyler, What&#x27;s your position on B-Corps that aren&#x27;t 100% profit driven?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bcorporation.net" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bcorporation.net</a>
评论 #19155242 未加载
no1youknowz超过 6 年前
I was very excited by Tinyseed. However, I didn&#x27;t quite like the model. I inquired about a model similar to this and it was declined. Fair enough I thought.<p>Now this comes along. Definitely sending out an email! Pretty excited to be honest.
评论 #19154739 未加载
staunch超过 6 年前
Anyone helping early stage startups is doing god&#x27;s work as far as I&#x27;m concerned. Technology is what pushes the world forward and anything that helps that is, with limited exceptions, a very positive thing.<p>My questions&#x2F;comments&#x2F;criticisms after a brief look, please correct me if I&#x27;m wrong:<p>1. It funds startups that already have growing revenue, which is fine, but that&#x27;s the hardest part by far. So it might filter out all of the best startups who can just choose to grind it out a few more months, having already overcome the biggest hurdle. Taking the calculated risk of funding startups that are pre-product&#x2F;market fit is where the real magic happens.<p>2. It&#x27;s legally complicated which means a smart founder would definitely want a lawyer (unlike SAFE), which could be quite costly. It could (potentially) scare off future investment as well.<p>3. It converts to equity (optionally, which seems scary) to a hefty ~10% valuation, which is more than YC takes in exchange for a much, much better deal because they all but guarantee successful startups will raise a large amount of money at a very high valuation. In effect this costs a startup maybe 3-10x more than YC on the VC route.<p>4. Like TinySeed, I think it also ignores the inescapable fact that startup investing is a hits-based business regardless of what anyone wants it to be. One out of 50 investments is going to be worth more than the other 49, so it makes sense to align interests with reality. By focusing on getting paid from the biggest winners, you can afford to be much more generous and high-minded with the rest.<p>5. Also like TinySeed, it doesn&#x27;t seem to account for just how high living expenses can be for founders with families, etc. Having to negotiate with your investors about paying rent is going to feel a lot like having a boss, which could be very demoralizing for founders. YC is extremely careful not to make founders feel like employees for good reason.<p>6. Having to negotiate the amount of investment also seems less then ideal. Knowing exactly what the deal is would be much better than having to haggle as the start of the relationship.<p>7. Wildcard: have you considered evolving this into an ICO-funder for startups? Equity crowdfunding with an initial seed investor seems like a huge idea.<p>I applaud the effort and hope it becomes huge. I wouldn&#x27;t bother commenting if I didn&#x27;t!
评论 #19164513 未加载
javery超过 6 年前
I always feels it&#x27;s disingenuous to say you don&#x27;t take equity if you ask for warrants or other % of the upside - it&#x27;s essentially a proxy for equity. When you factor in a 3-5X cap, PLUS warrants - this doesn&#x27;t seem like a better deal than something like Lighter Capital which has a smaller cap and zero warrants.
评论 #19156965 未加载
评论 #19156957 未加载
networkimprov超过 6 年前
A &quot;minimum viable product&quot; can raise the range of capital discussed on the FAQ via crowdfunding (Kickstarter, etc).<p>Not every product category is suitable for crowdfunds, but for those that are, a successful Kickstarter campaign is also an effective marketing launch, worth a small fortune by itself.
评论 #19156834 未加载
asien超过 6 年前
Very excited for this.<p>We have yet to find a funding model where products don’t turn to shit after the companies that raised hundreds of millions of dollars don’t meet their promises made to VC.<p>MongoDB is a great example of a company shooting itself in the foot because they don’t meet the promises of growth and profitability the market is expecting.<p>This fund is a great potentiel for dev tools and deep technology that needs only a tiny amount of capital at start and then can remain profitable with SaaS or Consulting.<p>This model would be somewhat unacceptable for VC because they expect every company they fund to go public and cash out right after with 100% YoY growth , otherwise you’re not a good investment.<p>Congratulations on this launch !
评论 #19154849 未加载
j_shi超过 6 年前
Awesome to see innovation from capital providers on the instrument in the wild. As a niche market founder wish option like Earnest existed when we were raising early financing.<p>Curious - to extent you&#x27;re willing to share - what dynamics are like for LPs (assuming raising outside). Since median vc fund return is barely 1x, and traditional VCs sometimes blow up otherwise good niche companies by forcing them to go big or bust, targeting 3-5x returns with way faster liquidity for investors a super interesting alternative.<p>And if the niche market turns out to be a massive market, can still go in with eyes wide open!
评论 #19154664 未加载
kubeans超过 6 年前
Do you believe there will be an industry of similar funds 5 years from now? If you&#x27;re able to share, what is Earnest Capital&#x27;s return profile? Do you have LPs?<p>Thanks for doing this AMA!
评论 #19154457 未加载
a13n超过 6 年前
&gt; We agree on a Return Cap which is a multiple of the initial investment (typically 3-5x)<p>Why is this better than just taking out like a 20-30% APR business loan?
评论 #19155144 未加载
评论 #19154985 未加载
评论 #19154963 未加载
评论 #19155273 未加载
评论 #19155365 未加载
lifeisstillgood超过 6 年前
Rob Walling is launching something a bit similar (cannot remember the name right now). But it&#x27;s aimed at bootstrapped starters who aren&#x27;t planning a unicorn billionndollar exit.<p>Why is this now a model? Too much cash chasing too few unicorns ? Too much money lost on unicorns that cannot fly or a realisation that chasing unicorns leaves herds of perfectly good horses untended?
评论 #19159841 未加载
rajacombinator超过 6 年前
If anyone is looking for a blog post writing prompt, I would love to see something written from a founder&#x27;s perspective breaking down when one should consider this form of funding, vs. YC&#x2F;VC, vs. &quot;grinding it out&quot; and continuing to bootstrap. Or taking personal loans, etc. This could include some analysis of the total cost of each option, the benefits, etc. Specify numbers about you should use X amount to pay your own salary, Y to hire people, Z for marketing&#x2F;other spend, etc.<p>I think the YC&#x2F;VC pre-market-fit-hoping-for-billions model is well understood. But I find it difficult to understand when a bootstrapped cashflow positive business should consider any of these options. If one has a bootstrapped side business making $X&#x2F;mo and a job making $150k+Y per month, when should one go all in on the business?
friendly_chap超过 6 年前
Wow, very interesting. My only question is about the 3-5x cap: given how many companies fail&#x2F;never turn a profit, how is that going to give a return?<p>They must be really confident in their ability to spot good companies.<p>Very happy to see alternatives to giving away equity however.
评论 #19154288 未加载
danschumann超过 6 年前
This is great stuff.. I&#x27;ve been waiting for a VC firm for a while that wouldn&#x27;t just push me to pump and dump. I&#x27;m making a company for the long haul.
desireco42超过 6 年前
Honestly, this looks perfect for my case, I am too early for Indie.vc for example, but overall, I love what is happening in this space. Pretty much, you get to prove your business model somewhat and you will get support. Most of the time, this will result in much better growth and focus, and few of times things don&#x27;t work out, it will not be as often as it would be without business being proven.<p>It is great time to be bootstrapper.
tobiasszarowicz超过 6 年前
I really like this concept. First Investors often face the follow up dilemma when they cant join a follow up round and get squeezed out with much a lower valuation. Am I right that this wont happen to you because your earning share is basically just a position on cost side? Or could that even be an obstacle for follow up rounds?
gnicholas超过 6 年前
Do startups that raise from you tend to have other investors come on at the same time? If so, do they use similar terms or something completely different? If this doesn&#x27;t happen now, would you hope that it would in the future (that is, that people would want to follow a round led by you)?
throwaway-1283超过 6 年前
Income Sharing Agreements are super interesting. Definitely an opportunity to building a SaaS for managing agreements from contract to facilitating the payments over the lifetime of the agreement...
sumitsrivastava超过 6 年前
A quick question for everyone: Is remote that big? Most indie projects I read about these days are something related to remote.
评论 #19155816 未加载
评论 #19155768 未加载
elliekelly超过 6 年前
So the SEA functions as a sort of hybrid preferred shares&#x2F;convertible note?
评论 #19154640 未加载
JackFr超过 6 年前
This looks a lot like a loan.<p>I would look at OnDeck or Kabbage before going this route.
评论 #19155296 未加载
评论 #19161158 未加载
评论 #19156109 未加载
评论 #19161967 未加载
shafyy超过 6 年前
This is amazing. Good luck!
bfritton超过 6 年前
Love this