Series A Fundraising Guide
The guide is simplistic and wildly overly optimistic -- a founder raising a Series A could not expect such fast progress, e.g., weeks.<p>Much more realistic and prudent are the common advice and reports of reality that fund raising is difficult and challenging, a full time job, with effort so large it is a risk to the startup, contacting hundreds of VCs, straining to get <i>warm introductions</i>, taking dozens, maybe 100+, of in person meetings, for just one check, much less several, and months of time.<p>The firm is asking way too much in time, effort, and expenses from the founder, e.g., flying to meetings with VCs.  A founder would need a significant source of funds just to apply as described.<p>There is the <i>pitch deck</i> with more advice that is challenging but obscure.  Bluntly, there are NO good guidelines, many guidelines that vary wildly and no good guidelines, for what should be in a pitch deck.  As a result, if the VCs need something other than just a good version, well organized, with the information clear, the spelling correct, of a business document, then they are looking for something founders have no way to supply.<p>Many VCs seem to want and expect to be swept off their feet by some block buster summer popcorn movie, but any such production is way too expensive in time, money, and effort for a Series A and close to irrelevant for serious business and financial work.<p>The firm is basically asking that the founder have a going business, at least <i>traction</i> and, to be realistic, likely earnings. Given the earnings, there is considerable question if the founder needs or should accept an equity check.<p>E.g., in the past, a Web site startup needed big bucks for Sun servers, etc.  No more:  $2000 in parts will build a very powerful server and the cloud can supply a lot of <i>pay as you go</i> server computing right away.<p>Given the traction of the startup,
the firm thinks WAY to much of the importance of their check.  The OP has the simplistic notion that the VC check will be the crucial enabler for future rapid growth; that view is in strong conflict with how successful businesses commonly grow.<p>Net, the firm, for the whole process, is asking WAY too much and giving and doing WAY too little.<p>Heavily that view of a Series A is from a dream version of the VC industry from 10+ years ago.  That part of VC is gone with the wind.  There is still lots of opportunity to make money in information technology startups, but ideas as simple and profitable as, e.g., Hotmail, are long gone.<p>IMHO, computer science and VC funded startups are out of sufficiently good new ideas, out of gas, at the end of the road.  For computer science, programming language syntax, parsing, compiling, linking, fundamental algorithms, database, TCP&#x2F;IP, etc. are rock solidly done work, but computer science doesn&#x27;t know what to do next.  Similarly for VC -- projects as simple as Hotmail are done.  There is more to do and very much worth doing, but computer science and the VCs need to find some new directions.<p>Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, we find that VCs who desperately need very rare and very exceptional projects are proceeding with simplistic attitudes no more serious than a family shopping for a standard SUV.<p>There is a lot of very serious work in our economy in research, engineering, law, medicine, national security, and parts of finance, but Sand Hill Road and the OP are not nearly serious enough.<p>In the end, instead of the OP, a founder of a rapidly growing startup should consider the common advice that they should just wait until a VC notices the startup and contacts the founder.  In the meanwhile, the founder should just keep working on the business.