This article was originally published at Michal’s blog.
At Reflex, we are using Samepage as our central communication tool. We send an occasional e-mail here and there, but most of our Powerteam agenda is covered by Samepage these days. But that was not always the case.
In the past, apart from in-person meetings, we used an e-mail group and it was, for the lack of better terms, madness. The issues we discuss are fairly complex. An e-mail might spark three separate topics for discussion. An answer to one question could raise two new. After few rounds of e-mails, we usually gave up and postponed the discussion to our next team meeting.
It’s not just about chatting, as a lot of the communication involves documents of some sort or other. We discuss pitch decks, P&L statements and patent applications.
Samepage is a team collaboration application, which combines team chat, voice and video calls with tools for collaborative work on documents. You can imagine it as a combination of Slack and Google docs. It’s closest competitor is actually Microsoft Teams, which provides similar all-in-one suite. However, for usage of Teams in a company you need the Office 365 license, which can be hefty. Not to talk about the complexity of running 365 in the first place.
Samepage is also a Reflex Capital portfolio company, so I have the privilege to know the team and work with them. It might surprise you, but the development of this world-class app happens in Pilsen, Czech republic, though the team is international with offices both in US and CZ.
Most functionality of Samepage revolves around Pages. These are shared documents, which can contain not only text, images and videos, which is pretty standard, but also things like embedded files, tasks, meetings and more. And you can of course chat and make video and audio conferences around the Page. This is a little different concept from Slack, which puts the chat room as the center piece and the documents and files you have to handle on the side.
We usually create a page for every company we are interested in, gather all the documentation in this page and chat about it within the team. We sometimes also create a special page with questions towards the founders of said company and invite the founders to participate in this page. This is also one of the nice features of Samepage: You can grant access to external people to specific pages and the great thing about it is, you do not have to pay for these guest users.
And speaking of free stuff: Samepage has made their chat feature completely free recently. I know that Slack also has a free tier, but it’s very limited and most importantly, will allow you to retain only limited number of messages.
If you haven’t yet, give Samepage a try, you might find it refreshingly useful, as did we.
Imagine: You have a really good company, an investor agrees to invest $5m at a wow valuation of $25m pre-money ($30m post-money) and everyone is happy. Happy … until it turns out that things are more complicated, that more money will be needed, and that no-one is now available to invest at $30m+ valuation. Yet you only need an additional $1m!
From your point of view, not such a big deal. Your stake is now 83.3% and the investor’s 16.7%. So, the hell with it, you raise at $20m, nobody dies… But it sucks. What looks like a no-brainer for you, that with such a small investment, dilution of shares is not so drastic and so let’s do it, has huge consequences. The situation described above is called a “downround,” and here’s what’s wrong with it:
The smallest problem is psychology, disturbing the valuation story. In the future, when you raise more money or sell your business, everyone will want to see the cap table, who owns what, who, when, and for how much people invested. Everyone wants to see an uncomplicated curve up. And sure we want the buyer in the mood to imagine how much higher the curve will be in a few years of his ownership. But instead of dreaming high, he would be now focusing on problems: “hey, what happened two years ago? Can not it happen again?”. It may hit the spell-binding moment hard.
Another issue is that the $1m will probably cost you much more than you imagined. Your first investor may have had some sort of “anti-dilution protection” in his legal documents. There are basically two types, weighted average, and the dreaded full ratchet. With that, the original investor will get additional preference shares issued as if he originally invested at $21m post-money valuation, i.e. his shareholding goes up from 16.7% to 23.8% … and you just lost 4.8% for the new investor + 7.1% for the previous one, so you sacrificed 11.9% of your company for $1m. By the way, it is the same as if you were raising at not $20m, but at $7.4m pre-money valuation (!).
Another reason why all investors hate downrounds and sometimes even block it with their veto-rights is their own accounting. If the investor does not enjoy a super anti dilution provision, the downround means a huge blow to his own profit and loss statement. In most cases, the investor would account its portfolio on so called “mark to market” value, so typically with startups, on valuations priced by a third party in arm’s length transaction. So, in our example above, you raise $1m, and it will create a whopping $1.5m loss for your previous investor (!). And some investors, as we already know, are somewhat corporate mannered and now it’s not the right time to report a loss …
And then the most important thing:
Nobody likes downrounds. Not even a new investor.
Okay, your company is still great, but not that great to support the higher valuation. You start fundraising and go on a roadshow. But now it’s very different from the last time, when you talked about the bright future, all the fabulous metrics, the potential etc. Now everyone is focused on problems. You will be defensive all the time. You will talk about what is wrong, why, what the original investor says about it, if it can happen again… everything wrong! Spirit is lost. Yet your company is still awesome! But no-one cares. You have a downround. You may think you offer a great deal for the new investor, that you offer a discounted valuation… but in reality, you present a problem. In such an atmosphere it is almost impossible to excite someone.
Not so long ago I met a company that was exactly in this position. Super product, people, industry, all good … to the point that their original investor a bit overshoot the valuation at the beginning and set the bar too high. It ended so we did not even give them a term sheet. Because giving a termsheet should always be an exciting moment, and you just simply cannot submit an exciting downround termsheet.
Investors do not want to buy companies that are not doing well. Investors want to be on the hockey stick curve. And no valuation discount will solve it.
To summarise: If you excite the first investor too much with your great projection and he gives you too high of a valuation, it’s a short-sighted victory. In the long run, you made a mistake, which can even be fatal.
Sometimes we come across a start-up, which in the past did, is doing, or is planning to do an ICO, or Initial Coin Offering. Simply put, an ICO means the company prints it’s own (digital) money and offers it to potential investors.
Most ICOs are in the form of utility tokens, which is a means of payment for services or products sold by the issuing company. I’ve seen special tokens for payment for ads or tutoring, for example.
Picture it as if you are going into an amusement park, which uses tokens for payment. You can buy these tokens at the entrance cash desk, in exchange for dollars. One token for one dollar. Some rides cost one token, some three and the roller-coaster costs ten tokens. It’s a little inconvenient for the visitors, but simpler for the management, as they don’t need to handle cash at all rides. Unspent tokens can be exchanged back for money, when you leave the park. We’ve all experienced something like that.
And now, picture the management doing something completely different. At the start of the season the park announces that it will offer 1 million tokens for sale, $1 a piece. The one mil it hopes to raise will be spent on improving the park and to cover operational cost. Thanks to the improvements, more people are supposed to visit the park. The demand for tokens will rise and based on economic theory, the price should increase. Close to the park, just three tram stops from the entrance, is an exchange, where you can exchange money for the tokens. Our park tokens can also be exchanged for other park tokens, everything for market rates, based on supply and demand. Decentralization galore! And if that’s not enough, one convenience store in town announced, it will accept the tokens for purchase of groceries.
Doesn’t make much sense, does it? Not just for potential token investors, park visitors, but even for the park itself. So when we see the ICO in the pitch deck, it mostly also means an IKO. Immediate K.O.