Content pfp
Content
@
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions

Cassie Heart pfp
Cassie Heart
@cassie
This week, Q Inc has changed course with speaking with investors. Given I receive a lot of cold opens from investors on Farcaster, I would like to share that change with everyone publicly, and why. Moving forward, we refuse to even begin conversations with funds who have ever (or intend to) engaged in token warrants. It is clear our values and beliefs are diametrically opposed, and this is a far easier filter to save ourselves the time. It has been a long path to fundraising principally because we are operating from a perspective that as a company collaborating on a fair launched project, we can not and will not do token warrants. Despite being upfront about this, this topic has resulted in a lot of time wasted in talking with crypto funds, because they do not believe equity has a path to return for them, and ultimately decline. This is very telling because if they don't believe the company will be successful what use are the tokens, unless...?
46 replies
130 recasts
415 reactions

Cassie Heart pfp
Cassie Heart
@cassie
So, they do not believe it or get it, and I do not have any more time to spend trying to explain how a company can help build a protocol and make money without being a scheme for dumping on retail for revenue. And so they're out, permanently. Don't let the door hit them where the bad thesis split them. But wasted time does not warrant a diatribe, rather a pithy "pick investors that align with your principles", so why this post? Because founders on here should understand what some of the funds are doing, as I and others, who I will keep anonymous, have learned the hard way that "no" is not the worst that can happen.
4 replies
5 recasts
152 reactions

Cassie Heart pfp
Cassie Heart
@cassie
On the darker side: a fund who with a strong presence here whose GP had an openness to equity deals and spoke against the abuses of VCs with respect to tokens, for several rounds of talks, ultimately passing on the round (fine) due to being too ambitious (coded for "they don't think it'll work", a soft no, still fine) – that would be a reasonable thing to say, if it was left there, there's always room for "no". Nos are healthy. What was not reasonable, was in the same message, a member of the fund _immediately_ following that up by asking for help in running nodes in order to earn tokens and offering a far smaller quantity as an "investment" in exchange. Ironic, hypocritical, unethical – these words do not speak strongly enough to the situation. But before someone comes here scrambling to defend their fund thinking I've singled them out: I was general in my choice of words describing actions here, because it wasn't one fund that did this. Three did.
3 replies
2 recasts
75 reactions

Eloise pfp
Eloise
@eloisee
Saying No but still want to set your term, they can’t have refuse the cake and still eat a piece
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction