Hi all, haven't checked my beach folder for a while so I've only just
caught up on some of these discussions. Just to pick up on the
combinator discussion as I was also one of the people driving this
forward initially.
We kind of got to the point where we needed to go really big or really
small. My instinct was just to go very small to get under all the
legal problems and at least get something rolling. We also really need
a person to become centrally involved who can do the legal stuff and
another person to do the accounting stuff. Until you have people who
can push it through those roadblocks its not going to happen. If
anyone on the list can do that please let me know, because I've
reached a relatively sane time where I could donate a bit of time to
this.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:49 PM, David Jones <david.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will respond to Pia's thread separately, but here is my comment on the
> {{Beach}}Combinator initiative.....I feel very lame about not resolving that
> initiative one way or another.
>
> Three factors contributed to me not taking it further:
> 1. Rai is correct in that there would be $5Kish in bootstrapping
> compliance/legalities/accounting and if the community was only going to get
> a pool of $30K up, then that is pretty severe leakage/overhead. If we can
> get $100K pooled then it is probably a good reason to do it. The other
> option is to just hand the money over but we resolved that treating it as a
> investment vehicle was a better approach.
>
> 2. There is prevailing attitude amongst some of the seasoned members of the
> community that grants and fundraising is a bad thing. At some points that
> has become pretty heated including direct criticism of {{Beach}}Combinator
> experiment. That criticism disincented me (as an interested party) in
> pursuing it....if the seasoned members are not supporters then we were
> swimming against the tide. If you get a seasoned sponsor like Paul Graham,
> then these things snowball - legends follow...***
>
> 3. I have my own startup that needs more feeding and watering than a
> tamagotchi. So attended to that instead of #1, #2 - sorry about that.
>
> So the net/net is that (as Rai indicated) its stuck and needs some bullish
> entrpreneurs to boot it along and resolve these small roadblocks.
>
> *** Here is my opinion on COMET/CR Grants and VC/Fundraising: "they have
> their place".
> Everyone seems to have an opinion: I've bootstrapped several startups on
> savings and cashflow. I've also leveraged all three of the above and have
> seen the distractions and merit. For example here are some merit-based
> scenarios:
> a. If you are trying to solve a hard technical problem, then often you need
> a deeper funding pool than you can access from whatever early revenues of
> F&F cash you can source. It takes time, money and smart people to solve
> problems (let alone pay to protect your IP). Not all startups are about
> webapps (ahem).
>
> b. You have validated your product but the aussie population can't deliver
> the revenues you need to fund launching in the US. You know the US will be
> 70% driver of revenues - you must go there. You discover your first US
> employee or contractor will cost more than your whole OZ team. Then you need
> expansion capital to reduce the cashflow pain. EMDG and Tax rebates are
> great but the cash comes 12+months later.
>
> c. Sometimes an idea is before its time (startup by definition) - you need
> runway to educate/grow the market.
>
> This is not complete but you get the idea. Should Grants/VC replace
> focussing on the fundamentals of your business? - nope. Are Grants/VC evil?
> - nope. Are they compensation for Australian environmental challenges - you
> bet. (One of the great gutsy oz innovator CEO's Peter Farell [NYSE: RMD]
> once referred to Australia as "Botswana" in that its a bastard to bootstrap
> a global business from here. Did RMD use grants? you bet. Did RMD use VC?
> you bet. Did RMD use F&F? you bet. "they have their place".
>
> I will respond to Pia's thread elsewhere.
> d.
>
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Rai <dekraz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We got exactly this far:
>> http://confluence.siliconbeachaustralia.org/display/general/Silicon+Beach+Startup+Syndicate
>>
>> Last I remember, there were discussions about legalities and that was
>> kinda it.
>>
>> 2009/5/21 Tyrone Castillo <tyrone.casti...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Not sure what happened but wasn't there going to be a {{Beach?}}-
>>> Combinator of sorts?
>>>
>>> Don't remember who was doing the organising, but I think that the
>>> discussions went offline.
>>>
>>>
>>> TC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21/05/2009, at 5:49 PM, Matt Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > How about a version of Kiva for would-be angel investors? Spread the
>>> > risk, spread the reward.
>>> >
>>> > Unless such a thing exists already...
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> >
>
--
Phil Sim
Chief Executive Officer,
MediaConnect Australia Pty Ltd
www.mediaconnect.com.au
phi...@mediaconnect.com.au
Ph: +61 2 9894 6277
Fax: +61 2 8246 6383
Mobile: 0413889940
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach
Australia mailing list.
No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself:
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/browse_thread/thread/99938a0fbc691eeb
To post to this group, send email to
silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
