![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Not enough hours
So what's actually going on with me? A lot. Now that I care -- really really care! -- about my job, I'm quite conscious about how much there is for me to do. I have a larger project I'm chipping away at (the Volity game creation tutorial that I know a lot of you have been waiting for, whether you knew it or not), and several discrete "homework assignments" to get done before our next Monday meeting. Not done with all of the latter yet and it's almost the weeekend aaaah. I will finish.
We still haven't struck the funding jackpot. Not that I expected to by now. In the meantime I am doing pretty well at making connections, and can feel the network starting to heat up, though there remains plenty important letters to send (this being part of this week's homework). Also sniffed at my old O'Reilly weblog again today -- it still works, though I haven't posted to it in nearly two years. I have been pondering out loud whether to announce Volity on it, something I've been putting off for years, but which seems more feasible now that we're alpha. That author photograph, though, ugh; summer of 1998, puffy-haired and hirsute. Got to do something about that.
There is an interesting discussion within the ranks about funding, and whether to pursue opportunities for lesser amounts -- enough to go "yay money" over, not so much to stop looking for more. There is a worry, I think, that attached to any relatively significant sum of money is a sense of security whose magnitude is invariable with that of the sum. Take the money, and you'll relax and let yourself think of other things. Take too little money, and you'll be due for a rude awakening when the money runs out before the relaxation does.
I can't find a purely logical reason why we shouldn't accept a lesser sum, if offered, so long as we agree beforehand not to end the funding search until we meet our initial goal. I recognize we're not purely logical beings, but surely we can look out for each other? It's an interesting problem and I think I understand the feelings behind both sides of it. Tricky stuff.
Got up early-ish today (before 10am), going to attempt early-ish sleep. I love staying up late, but not only do I work better during and after a dayful of sunlight on my open eyes, I really want to be in synch with the folks I'm working with.
We still haven't struck the funding jackpot. Not that I expected to by now. In the meantime I am doing pretty well at making connections, and can feel the network starting to heat up, though there remains plenty important letters to send (this being part of this week's homework). Also sniffed at my old O'Reilly weblog again today -- it still works, though I haven't posted to it in nearly two years. I have been pondering out loud whether to announce Volity on it, something I've been putting off for years, but which seems more feasible now that we're alpha. That author photograph, though, ugh; summer of 1998, puffy-haired and hirsute. Got to do something about that.
There is an interesting discussion within the ranks about funding, and whether to pursue opportunities for lesser amounts -- enough to go "yay money" over, not so much to stop looking for more. There is a worry, I think, that attached to any relatively significant sum of money is a sense of security whose magnitude is invariable with that of the sum. Take the money, and you'll relax and let yourself think of other things. Take too little money, and you'll be due for a rude awakening when the money runs out before the relaxation does.
I can't find a purely logical reason why we shouldn't accept a lesser sum, if offered, so long as we agree beforehand not to end the funding search until we meet our initial goal. I recognize we're not purely logical beings, but surely we can look out for each other? It's an interesting problem and I think I understand the feelings behind both sides of it. Tricky stuff.
Got up early-ish today (before 10am), going to attempt early-ish sleep. I love staying up late, but not only do I work better during and after a dayful of sunlight on my open eyes, I really want to be in synch with the folks I'm working with.
no subject
Is it just me, or are you posting more than usual? If so, I associtate this with bigger stuff than what's discussed here.
no subject
Accepting insufficient funding should only happen in a carefully planned way because relationships cost, and every investor will require more work to keep them happy. Furthermore, you don't want to get money and then spend all of it trying to get more money. The money you get needs to be sufficient to move operations forward.
One way of dealing with this is to stage your business plan, and treat the initial "too small" investment as a seed round. Take the small amount of money and get a cut-rate version of your tech to market as fast as possible. See what the market does with it. If it does nothing, fold up your tents and go home. If there's some interest, it gives you more leaverage to pull in the next round of financing. This puts the primary and secondary investors on clearly different footing, which makes managing the relationships with and between them simpler.
no subject
My experience and opinion is that it takes about as much transactional cost (time and expense) to get small sums of money as it does to get large sums of money. So getting larger sums makes more sense.
Also, unless the small sum is structured in a non-equity way (or with lots of planning), you will have to spend more time negotiating the second round.