Unsafe Notes

I was reminded yesterday how much of a shit show raising seed capital via SAFE notes is. I can’t and won’t get into why I was reminded of that, but let’s just say nobody wants to go there.

So I thought I’d repost the important parts of a post I wrote on this topic a couple years ago.

I have never been a fan of convertible notes. USV has done quite a few convertible and SAFE notes. We are not opposed to convertible and SAFE notes and will not let the form of security the founder wants to use get between us and investing in a company that we like.

But I continue to think that convertible and SAFE notes are not in the best interests of the founder(s).

Here is why:

  1. They defer the issue of valuation and, more importantly, dilution, until a later date. I think dilution is way too important of an issue to defer, for even a second.
  2. They obfuscate the amount of dilution the founder(s) is taking. I believe a founding team should know exactly how much of the company they own at every second of the journey. Notes hide this from them, particularly the less sophisticated founders.
  3. They can build up, like a house of cards, on top of each other and then come crashing down on the founder(s) at some point when a priced round actually happens. This is the worst thing about notes and doing more than one is almost always a problem in the making.
  4. They put the founder in the difficult position of promising an amount of ownership to an angel/seed investor that they cannot actually deliver down the round when the notes convert. I cannot tell you how many angry pissed off angel investors I have had to talk off the ledge when we are leading a priced round and they see the cap table and they own a LOT less than they thought they did. And they blame the founder(s) or us for it and it is honestly not anyone’s fault other than the harebrained structure (notes) they used to finance their company.

The Series A focused VC firms that often lead the first priced rounds get to see this nightmare unfold all the time. The company has been around for a few years and has financed itself along the way with all sorts of various notes at various caps (or no cap) and finally the whole fucking mess is resolved and nobody owns anywhere near as much as they had thought. Sometimes we get blamed for leading such a dilutive round, but I don’t care so much about that, I care about the fact that we are allowing these young companies to finance themselves in a way that allows such a thing to happen.

Here are some suggestions for the entire angel/seed sector (founders, angel investors, seed investors, lawyers):

  1. Do priced equity rounds instead of notes. As I wrote seven years ago, the cost of doing a simple seed equity deal has come way down. It can easily be done for less than $5k in a few days and we do that quite often.
  2. The first convertible or SAFE note issued in a company should have a cap on the total amount of notes than can be issued. A number like $1mm or max $2mm sounds right to me.
  3. Don’t do multiple rounds of notes with multiple caps. It always ends badly for everyone, including the founder.
  4. Founders should insist that their lawyers publish, to them and the angel/seed investors, a “pro-forma” cap table at the closing of the note that shows how much of the company each of them would own if the note converted immediately at different prices. This “pro-forma” cap table should be updated each and every time another note is isssued. Most importantly, we cannot and should not continue to allow founders to issue notes to investors and not understand how much dilution they are taking on each time they do it. This is WRONG.

Honestly, I wish the whole scourge of notes would go away and we could go back to the way things were done for the first twenty years I was in the venture capital business. I think it would be a better thing for everyone. But if we can’t put the genie back in the bottle, we can at least bottle it up a bit better. Because it causes a lot of problems for everyone.

#entrepreneurship#VC & Technology

Comments (Archived):

  1. pointsnfigures

    Yup. Our seed fund has never done a note. I did them as an angel. We have talked entrepreneurs out of notes/SAFEs for the reasons you elucidate above. Additionally, while the legal expenses are higher to do a priced round of equity, you can avoid all kinds of landmines that will happen in later rounds of funding.I might add one that is a bit selfish but we always let entrepreneurs know this:The venture fund gets audited by an accounting firm (we use BDO). They value the investments in our portfolio. If we are in a seed round that hasn’t converted, they have no way to value the company with any precision. The audit goes to our LPs. Our LPs might look at us funny when we say we think the company is doing well and worth this but the accountant says we don’t even know how much of that company we own.

    1. Grit Capital

      I’m missing a step here. Doesn’t a cap give you a minimum ownership? Couldn’t you value based on that?Or does the ability of a company to keep raising SAFEs (more money invested) have an effect? Or something else?

      1. pointsnfigures

        No. A cap only is a number. It is somewhat protective for investors since if a company does really well they will likely raise over that cap. As an investor, since I took the early risk I get paid a bit for it. Personally, I’d much rather do a priced round.It’s also messy; do I want you to raise the next round over the cap, under the cap or at the cap? If I am getting a discount you can see where I might have an incentive to see you raise below the cap so I get an even better deal and more ownership.To figure out ownership, you need to know the share price and how much money is being invested at what price. Anti-dilution terms can affect share prices and ownership as well as option pools. Dividends if included also are dilutive as is the interest rate and discounts associated with notes/SAFEs. Succeeding rounds can have terms in them that washout the earlier cap table (been there, done that).Suppose you invest in a company at a $3MM valuation. it raises a couple of rounds with the last one going off at $20MM. As a seed investor you think you look decent. Because of preferences/dividends etc in succeeding term sheets that company might have to sell for $50MM for me to realize any gain on the initial investment.

  2. Pascal_Levensohn

    I agree completely and wrote a strong condemnation of SAFE notes in TechCrunch two years ago.

  3. Steven Cohn

    As a Founder who used convertible notes…I 100% agree with you. A mistake that I will not make again.In the post, you mentioned this…”simple seed equity deal has come way down. It can easily be done for less than $5k in a few days and we do that quite often.”Did you write an article on how this is done? If not, can you?

    1. ci5er

      Can you speak as to why you wouldn’t do this again? I’m a bit baffled by the “all or nothing” tone of Mr. Wilson’s post.For me (anecdote coming!), one, maybe two, convertible seeds, at (say) $500K and $1M, that convert at 30% and 25% (say) discount from a $10M Series A at a ~$40M~$50M valuation are super-easy to model/calculate and circulate amongst your participants in each.Everyone knows what is going on all the time.Now – before I do this – I would tend to talk to the Series A priced equity folks about this 18~30 months in advance: “IF we do XYZ (hitting targets/milestones/KPIs), would you invest up to $10M at a valuation of $50M?”. Knowing that someone will follow at a bounded price makes everyone feel better.AND! While you haven’t priced the round, you’ve kept everyone informed, and as well – I find that (for me) pricing early rounds is super-hard. This is why: I think that I am huge, and the investor thinks that I am small. That’s just the nature of things – we disagree about what the price *should* be. Simply saying that you get a 30% better deal than the priced deal, when we have enough traction to actually be able to argue about price on a rational basis seems like a win.You apparently disagree, and I’d love to hear why.

      1. Steven Cohn

        Sure. Happy to embellish. 1. What happens if the Series A is below the Note cap? Let’s say you get a note cap at $8m pre-product, but need to price a round at a $5m pre$. Then you are really, really hosed.2. The round first priced round is going to want you to leave a big option pool, but it won’t come out of either the notes or the round. So guess, who eats it? The Founder and the early employees get huge dilution.3. It is a slippery slope. What’s another $1m note? It so easy to dust off the old docs and change the cap a little.There are other reasons. I just will never do it again.

        1. ci5er

          Thank you for that.Re: #2, I tend to make an “evergreen” pool at company formation time, so the pool is essentially “founders” too.I’ve never done more than two “rounds” of note-based seed. And I tend to find a “bounded future price” from priced equity VC-types before I engage with angels.As you say – none of these are risk-free protections, though. I understand your point-of-view better. Thank you.

          1. Steven Cohn

            I don’t know what an “evergreen” option pool is. but i do know that trading options for founders equity is not advantageous. and also, anytime you price a round the investors are going to want a fixed pool. and they are going to want it to come out of the pre$. and having multiple notes creates far greater dilution than if you had priced those rounds to begin with.

  4. kcverady

    https://captable.io/resourc…should be required exercises. Actually the whole Techstars/Kauffman course should be.

    1. Ushir Shah

      Agreed! Just finished the spring 2019 course for this and found it very valuable.

      1. Jacob Beemer

        Is this archived anywhere online? We would love to watch this content

  5. Guy Lepage

    The one thing that a SAFE does though is it gets things going. In Canada, at least it used to be this way, there was this HUGE battle about valuation. This would take 5-10x as long as a SAFE agreement conversation and would usually end up, in more times than not, with no funding at all.A LOT of great companies would not exist today without the SAFE agreement.That’s just my opinion. But I do think discussing a rough evaluation with your investors is a wise idea. More common sense really. I know I do when I am chatting with them. Everyone should be aware of where they stand. Again, common sense as a business owner, imo. It’s YOUR business to know.

    1. awaldstein

      I’ve done a number of (maybe foolishly) small businesses bootstrapped then small notes to get them going.The cost of a priced round for this type of business made no sense.

    2. pointsnfigures

      the negotiation should not be a competition. if it’s framed as win/lose, your relationship is off to a rocky start.

      1. jason wright

        play the non zero sum game.

        1. Ash

          Easier said than done … as Lepage says it can get a bit acrimonious & a loss for both investor and the company

          1. Guy Lepage

            Well said.

      2. awaldstein

        well said.

      3. Guy Lepage

        I agree that it shouldn’t be a competition. But when it’s a discussion about the value of a “dream,” more than anything, I’ve seen it usually end up in folks taking a hard stance. The investor is thinking rationally while the founder(s) are thinking about a future and losing massive equity at the beginning could significantly harm the baby (company).

  6. Ushir Shah

    As a founder just starting to raise capital, are you saying that seed and series A vc’s shouldn’t do notes as part of their investments, but given you state a 1-2mm raising cap, you still feel it’s ok for friends, family and angels to use SAFE’s, is that right? I’m about to issue them to that group above and want to make sure I’m understanding with which investor group the issue is more pronounced.

  7. Marc Shewchun

    @Fred When you say $5k in legal costs to complete a seed is that just your bill or the total bill for the transaction including company counsel? I am a lawyer up in Toronto and curious where our market is relative to the US on costs.

  8. Mike Albang

    QSBS basis doesn’t start tracking until the SAFE converts. So 5 years could be 7 and investor can miss out on tax free gains

  9. Richard

    Unsafe -Unsafe ?How about healthcare startups that sell and treat medicine like and used pair of shoes.How about electric scooter startups that contribute to thousands of injuries, including deaths, offering 15 mph bullets that whip along sidewalks.VCs really have no regard for much except the $.

    1. fredwilson

      You are a bitter and angry man Richard. Have you tried therapy?

      1. Richard

        Fred, thanks for the concern, but don’t be foolish/naive. You don’t know a thing about me – but the few minutes I comment on your blog. Im using facts and trying to get you – and you Minyan -to think/change a bit. (ps I hit a truth-nerve on your healthcare investment haven’t I?)#nottrollingI’ll treat you to coffee on Ab/ Kinney anytime.

        1. Matt A. Myers

          What’s the healthcare investment nerve you might have hit? I haven’t been paying attention or heard anything.

          1. Richard

            I strongly challenged this investment when Fred first blogged about it (the Pom Pom boys see this as being negative, not recognizing that they foolishly attribute all types of expertise the successful VC). When the front page of the NYT uncovers this level of stench, it warrants someone – besides me – to bring it up and challenge USVs approach.https://uploads.disquscdn.chttps://uploads.disquscdn.c

          2. Matt A. Myers

            Interesting too that return address is Nurx and not the pharmacies.

      2. Matt A. Myers

        If you remove your projection and emotions you’re holding onto related to Richard then there’s no outright anger in his comment – he’s simply highlighting a very real and serious problem with VCs funding projects to scale fast that ignore externalities – the cost of safety (and efficiency) over scaling quickly to exit within ~10 year cycle. If you think someone highlighting negative aspects of something as anger, then your gauge for emotion is very strange to me. Your feeling a strong enough impulse to react in what could be considered a childish, unthoughtful way – shows there’s unprocessed emotion – and that usually means people have this unhealthy coping mechanism, of suppression/repression, as an active tool they use in their life; it’s akin to an emotional burst by Elon Musk tweeting out – without linking to or having proof as far as we know – calling one of those rescue divers in Thailand a pedophile multiple times, Elon having been trigger just by the man for saying the rescue submarine wouldn’t have worked or been useful.And sure, the “VCs really have no regard for much except the $” may have been triggering for you – though in his language he did leave room for VCs caring for more than money, however $ is the leading metric in VC – #2nd having to be potential or perceived future potential impact – perceived as in it is through looking glass/bias of whatever indoctrination and/or life experience a person has. Unless you’re donating money to a company/organization, or someone like Elon Musk who puts his own ~$170MM into his own projects throwing some calculated Hail Marries and not expecting returns – then as a VC fund you’re primarily expecting, designing, and selecting for returns.Really, it’s valuable that Richard still comes here and comments – perhaps even if you end up reading this comment and realize you perhaps equally or more so than Richard aren’t processing emotions from things previously said: suppression/repression is bad for your health, literally – and it blocks critical thinking, neural networks, from forming how they naturally want to – which leads to deepening bias, narrowed view of understanding, and dis-ease progression including but not limited to cancer; there’s research that shows suppressing anger/emotion suppresses the immune system.

  10. Mike

    All good points. I would also make a distinction between SAFE and traditional Convertible Notes as the latter is more structured (interest, maturity etc.) to help protect investors and set expectations. All parties should take the time to read through and understand the conversion terms under various scenarios. But the terms and valuation of subsequent investors (as mentioned) will have a huge impact regardless of the note terms, option pool etc. Note or priced round, a misplaced valuation, or expectation of valuation, will disrupt the model down the road. But a lot of it is probably just guess work at these early stages based on a few comps and some high expectations.I don’t think any founder would object to a priced round but these note vehicles are targeted for very early stage companies, pre-revenue, first time founding teams. Following some F&F funding these teams are probably looking to put together their first syndicate of external funding. At this early stage this might be 5, 10, 15 small checks from individual and angel investors to help the company get to some meaningful metric that will be of interest to larger investors. Under this scenario I might question the logistics of trying to syndicate 10 or more small investors in a priced round? If you can fill the round with less than 5 investors, or something manageable, then it sounds like a priced round could be the way to go?

  11. Sue

    Fred. Helpful to see this again from you. I cannot IMAGINE founders not doing hypothetical pro formas to reflect future scenarios building in discount, etc. I’m sure you’ve seen it if you say this. Good reminder to me to insist on seeing something in service of founders.One question. On the other issue you raise about “stuffing” (that sounds negative, which I don’t mean) early investors (I’m often one in my personal stuff) in the A round. I feel that this can happen in any scenario, whether seed is via priced or debt. Your view is it’s just way easier with something like one or more notes/safes? Sometimes recaps are required to get that next money in. I guess shareholders have more rights in the seed priced scenario, but seems in the end it comes down to same tough choice.

  12. sigmaalgebra

    For all the stress, anxiety, verbiage about this approach, that approach to having investors, to me, something doesn’t look right; there’s an unmentioned 900 pound gorilla at the table: Does the startup have traction, hopefully revenue, still better, after tax earnings, significant and growing rapidly in a large market? From all I can tell, if so, then there are lots of eager equity investors. Else, raising the money is from worse than waterboarding where just the effort could sink the company down to just flat out impossible with the effort an irresponsible waste of time.Now there is a special opportunity, maybe better than the last best opportunity 4000 years ago in some village where a guy knew just the place back in the hills where it was easy to pick up gold from a stream bed and swap it for essentially anything in the village: I.e., there’s the Internet and Web along with computer processor cycles, storage, and communications data rates shockingly cheap, e.g., 2 TB of hard disk for the price of one day of breakfast, lunch, and dinner at McDonald’s for two, literally, 1 Gbps Internet data rate along with unlimited land line US long distance phone and some TV for less than $100 a month, and lots of inexpensive down to free infrastructure software, data, etc.So, have a sole, solo founder entrepreneur (i) identify a need, that is, find a problem to solve that can be solved with a Web site, a need in a nicely large market, (ii) get a development computer good enough also to be a good first Web server, (iii) write the software, (iv) go live, get publicity, users, ads, and revenue, and (v) grow to earnings significant and growing rapidly. That’s what the guy who did the romantic matchmaking service Plenty of Fish did; then he sold out for ~$550 million.Notice step (v): Before that step, equity funders are harder to please than the lead high school cheerleader with a rich father; after step (v), it appears that the equity funders will fill the street in front of the entrepreneur’s house with their stretch, black limos begging the entrepreneur to take a check.But the sole, solo founder has tiny burn rate and, thus, likely can keep going through (iv) with his own checkbook.So, before step (v), the equity funders don’t want the entrepreneur, and after step (v) the entrepreneur doesn’t want the equity funders, that is, doesn’t need the check along with the “stress, anxiety, verbiage” of an equity deal.Maybe later the founder will approve taking an equity check, say, after he has 50 employees and a CFO to handle all the “stress, anxiety, verbiage” details, say, if only because he may convert to a C-corporation anyway if only to have a way for the employees to participate in the growth of the value of the company with liquidity.Or, the computing for a Web site is just dirt cheap which in part means that angel, seed, or venture equity funding is less, really MUCH less, important than just a few years ago. Even if an equity check might help a little a founder such as I outlined, the “stress, anxiety, verbiage” botheration might not be acceptable.Ah, 2 TB of hard disk for less than $60; an AMD FX-8350 processor with 64 bit addressing, 8 cores, 4.0 GHz standard clock rate, quantity 1, $100, etc.!!! WOW!

  13. R Stewart Thompson

    Hi Fred, great post and even though I agree with 3 of the 4 points about notes, I’m still a BIG fan of them. I do have to say that I tell our companies that if they have every intention of being “the one”, a NY/Valley/Boston VC backed company they should never do a note.. drink the poison, own the choice, and drive to be one of 9000 cos that actually deliver 38x to their investors. Unfortunately as a seed investor from the non Boston/NY/Valley schtick notes are awesome.. they can be converted into debt when the company becomes a zombie and provides a way out for stuck investors, they get paid before equity if you dont convert and a Series A VC has a mean liquidation pref in front of the seed investors, and they can become equity if things work out. As Lombardi used to say 3 things happen when you pass the ball and two of them are bad”.. I guess notes is bringing the running game back into play! As a seed investor though I’d rather always go for equity and the big prize, but not everybody gets to see the USV awesome deal flow all the time 🙂

  14. Ash

    What happens to be an alternative to a SAFT ?

  15. Kasi Viswanathan Agilandam

    Everyone has their telescope of view….There is no good bad ugly money.ORSafe Unsafe Stolen moneywhen you have hungry families (coworkers and employees) to feed…. take what is wise to run the show. All depends on how hungry you are. When things take-off … you can just shu-shu all these notes into the gutters .Safe-Entrepreneurship is a oxymoron….if you wanna be safe … don’t start.Alas… Everyone has their telescope of view….

    1. JLM

      .Brilliant comment.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. Kasi Viswanathan Agilandam


  16. Steve Jones

    Biggest issue is that if things are not straight up and to the right, then at the moment the founder needs more support from existing investors, they realize the investors are not sitting in the same side of the table and all hell breaks loose. The moment when the founders most need a partner, they find themselves alone and wishing they’d priced the prior round, formed a board and had partners with deepPockets aligned with them. Instead they find investors waiting to extract a pound of flesh. Do it right up front. Don’t be foolish.

    1. Matt A. Myers

      You’re still not in a good negotiating position in this scenario even if you have a priced round – they’re only going to give you more money on their terms.

  17. jason wright

    acronyms and truth. ‘safe’, for financial capital. the state of supremacy of capital needs to be rethought.“Capital is, in essence, the power to organize the economic resources of a social system, and its worth a function of how much of those resources can be directed to the holder’s benefit.”

  18. TytchMe

    The pro forma cap table is a brilliant idea. It will not prevent business angels to moan about dilution but at least they won’t be able to argue they didn’t know.In our experience, angels usually blame investors/acquirers for down rounds or lower-valuation buyouts because they are too removed from operations to understand they are actually saving the company, in many cases.

  19. Angelo Santinelli

    Fred, I fear that these warnings go unheeded like those on the side of cigarette packages. I continue to get pushback from my students and entrepreneurs about convertible notes. They continue to stack them like flights over Logan Airport.

  20. Steven Kane

    amen sir

  21. Michael Mullany

    It’s not thoroughly checked yet – but I wrote a quick tool to help founders see what their ownership is under combinations of note caps, discounts & price round valuations. I think it could be useful for founders. Enjoy (and report bugs)https://codepen.io/mullany/…

  22. robertcpease

    I’d be interested in which law firms do priced rounds for $5k. Often if a company is raising ~$500k the transaction costs for a priced equity round for them as well as the lead really eat into the amount raised. May be the market I am in but if there are firms in the Pacific Northwest that do it for that rate, I am interested in learning where to look. Thanks for all you do Fred!

  23. Amos Ben-Meir

    As an active Angel Investor going on my 7th year, I agree with this post regarding unsafe notes. Priced rounds are always the preferred approach since everyone knows what they are getting in terms of ownership. The new YC SAFE released in October of 2018 called the “Post Money SAFE” takes some steps to remedy this. Using the post money SAFE and reading the associated “user-guide” should give founders and angels a much better idea of what they are getting in terms of future ownership. I am still surprised to see many experienced founders and angels that don’t really understand the mechanics of conversions on a priced round. A priced round inherently dilutes past investors and then layers of previous SAFEs or Convertible Notes that convert will further dilute them. Thats just the way things work. That said, SAFEs and Convertible Notes are here to stay and its best to educate Founders and Angels on how they work versus wishing them away… 🙂

  24. Simone Brunozzi

    You could do what YC did with the SAFE: public an open-source “structure” that everybody can agree to, and with your credibility rest assured that it can spread like fire in no time.By the way, I had experiences with tens of situations and I pretty much (99%) agree with you. I would happily sign and support something in that direction.

  25. Meg1luv20

    I pulled this blog up in a financial meeting about my startup. We have an interested investor and I got asked if I would want to do a safe note with them…I said no ; then I air drop this on the screen and we came to a better agreement for our company and the investor.

  26. andreaskraemer

    Couldn’t agree more. This CN and SAFE business has gotten out of control. A convertible note was meant as a bridge loan until the next financing was in place – usually a term sheet already existed but the company would run out of money before it closed. Today, we just issue them blindly without a next round on the horizon.

  27. awaldstein

    On this topic Charlie, you are the voice of market reason from the trenches.People should listen.

  28. Sue

    Charlie on this front the options are pretty equivalent. Seed companies get over-obsessed with a lead investor in part b/c (IMO) angels use this as a way to dodge investing vs. just saying they’re not ready. Lots of seed rounds don’t have leads. You might have a minimum close amt built into a seed raise on a priced round, but it’s often 30% of the total, so you don’t need the whole amt to close a priced round anymore than you need it to start raising on a note.I notice I feel a little reluctant to share this..but thought I’d mention potentially in service of the discussion.

  29. Lawrence Brass

    “Cash is king” – So true.Even more when one have learned this through pain.My best employee left the company because we didn’t have enough cash to pay him. We couldn’t make him stay offering options then because, in his words, “he owned the company”. He visited us this week. He got emotional when he saw the owls and the plans hanging on the wall, the clock on the wall still ticking.After he left I got convinced of one thing, he will come back. Probably wiser, better, and faster and hopefully also this time with the conviction that “cash is king”.

  30. Sue

    I appreciate your openness, and now I’m going to do some noodling on the signal point you raise. Obv not ideal. We put in a floor on a note too…but I do see your point.

  31. Richard

    I rarely if ever toss insults at a person, their behavior maybe, the person no.This is the 2nd or 3rd time that Fred has tossed an insult at me personally. I’m not offended, but it’s sad to see the Fanboys come out and point at me, rather than address Fred for acting out inappropriately. First they came for me…..

  32. Matt A. Myers

    To be fair, Fred’s the one who replied with a childish comment.

  33. gbattle

    A personal attack (re: wholesale VC greed) deserves one in return (call for therapy), so there’s some volley/serve going on, but neither serves the conversation and, may frankly, be offsetting #5 viloations (https://avc.com/2017/01/avc….That said, I’ll digress and entertain Richard’s ire. Do you, Richard, believe in personal agency and freedom, that people have a right to do with their bodies as they wish, be it harmful or smart? Are VCs who fund innovation responsible for regulatory oversight, or is that more of an industry or governmental responsibility? In our lifetime, is innovation a leading indicator of future regulatory oversight by government? Aren’t VCs actually duty bound legally to uphold fiduciary responsibility, whereby they maximize LP value and, if so, doesn’t this make your final comment self-evident as a legal benefit (given the alignment with LPs), not a bug? And, by extension, shouldn’t your ire be targeted at the LPs (the pension funds, school endowments, etc.) who fund the VCs mandate that invest in the “unsafe” innovation that government eventually regulates? And who benefits from those LP investments …When you pull the string far enough, the responsibility for that which you find “unsafe” is much more expansive than you might think. It could even include you.BTW, not a fanboy. I’ve been called an asshole by Fred a couple times (predating rule #5, but still proud of it). Dissent is healthy … when well considered.Now, back under my comfy rock …

  34. Matt A. Myers

    Are you saying making $ isn’t the #1 leading metric for VCs? That is what every decision is falling back to – he didn’t say $ is the only thing VCs regard.

  35. Matt A. Myers

    It’s everyone’s responsibility to “do no harm” – especially in the medical-health field, that is an oath taken. It’s having a practice of non-violence vs. blissful ignorance – which is what leads to all world problems.If highlighting fiduciary responsibility as their only legal responsibility – selfishly fiduciary responsibility of only the company’s financial state and survival, leaving out external costs to individuals and society – then that’s arguably a really shitty, selfish, egotistical feature – or bug – ignorance is bliss, narrow, shallow perceptive to form to justify ones lack of thought.Everyone’s responsible at every level – passing off the blame to someone else isn’t taking responsibility or holding accountability. That takes developing self-awareness to realize, which takes healing yourself and past physical, emotional, and perhaps spiritual wounds. If not you’re encrusted in your biased, ego mind coping mechanisms of repression/suppression to “protect you” from trauma and integrating the truth of the world, where your mind reflects reality fully without adding layers blinding one, making them ignorant.

  36. Richard

    Would you have the same thought process if the VC were a CEO of an old legacy chemical company? Or a Mayor of a municipality? What I’m talking about is a culture where VCs by writing a check can dismiss the logic of the SEC and the Supreme Court (with the strike of a keyboard). Would they get away with half this “free rider/no consequences” approach to investment if they weren’t living on the pedestals they built I’ve the last 20 years?

  37. gbattle

    Are your rose colored glasses prescription (sarcasm)? The hallmark of an anti fragile system isn’t group hugs, trust falls and kumbaya moments. It stands up when people act completely in self interest, at their worst – maximizing economics (or happiness, or whatever). We don’t have to hope for good actors as the incentives dictate the behavior – just manage the incentives. Saying that we’re “all responsible for everyone” is neither honest nor reasonable. Magical thinking, oaths and pledges won’t solve anything in a sustainable way, in healthcare, VC, government or anywhere else.

  38. Matt A. Myers

    Your snark is pretty lame. And sure, yin-yang cycle and all that – part of that swing back is from selfishness back to love and connecting, caring about others. The hallmark of an anti-fragile system is not being ignorant, making your ego brittle to fluidity – requiring rigidity and fighting for that in order to feel falsely safe, which ones a person and systems brittle, and who will behave childish – kick and scream like having a temper tantrum. You’re quite wrong that individuals, everyone, taking responsibility won’t solve anything.