What’s the process for when a user gets a new phone? I dread getting one because my keys depending on the phone completely disappear and have no transfer mechanism.
Two options, each configurable by the developer implementing the SDK:
(1) When a user sets up their new phone using an iCloud / Google Drive backup of their old phone, the private keys will be already embedded in the relevant apps when they first open the app on the new phone. The developer can ask the user to decrypt the private key for the first session with a user-defined passcode
(2) The SDK provides a QR backup system - users can export their private key in a QR code, print it out or save it on a USB drive, and then scan that code using their new phone. Alternatively, they can just open that QR backup screen on their old phone and scan that with the same app on their new phone. Google Authenticator recently released a key export feature like this (we had it before Google, but it's inspired by blockchain.com's wallet backup system from 2012).
Correct, that's currently the case. Users can use QR code backup/restore functionality if enabled by the developer to switch between iOS and Android. That would have to be done app-by-app. We're working on our own cloud backup system to automate this.
I think such transitions between smartphone OSs already entail significant credential transfer issues, since saved passwords also do not automatically move between OSs.
You'd have similar problems if you used "Sign in with Apple" for an app on an iOS device and then switched to Android.
Overall, simplifying how to understand one's cap table is great. It gets in the way of many founders understanding their business in really pernicious ways.
I do believe this will change the dynamic for YC founders dramatically 1 - 3 years out if not ready for a Series A (equity round) but need more capital (seed extension). I know many people who raised $500K - $3mm more on SAFEs. Because they were pre-money, the dilution for stacking SAFEs worked. Now, that will be much harder. The next round of financing will need to be an equity round to convert SAFEs to equity. I don't know if this is good or bad, but it will push people very heavily towards an equity round if they need any more funding.
It would still be very easy to raise a bridge round on SAFEs at a higher cap (or the same cap). Not sure why there would be a push to equity round. Even better, you'll know your dilution after the bridge round which will better allow you to plan for the A.
My understanding is that additional post-money SAFEs dilute solely common, whereas additional pre-money SAFEs dilute common and other pre-money SAFEs. So if you want to do a new round, by doing an equity round, you can dilute the post-money SAFEs with common. But if you do a 2nd post-money SAFE round, solely common gets diluted.
Since keeping cap flat is logistically / emotionally easiest for both sides to swallow, the founder dilution is worse under a "flat" scenario. In the pre-money world, if you did pre-money $10mm cap and raised $2mm, then later another $2mm at same cap, common would own ~71% (10 / 14) on conversion (assuming A is high enough). In post-money world, if you do $12mm cap and raise $2mm (so equivalent to old world in 1st round), then later raise another $2mm with same cap, common would own 67% (8 / 12). That's just 4 - 5%, but a real difference.
So I believe the incentive is higher to do an equity round to convert the post-money SAFEs so they can be a part of the dilution of the new round. Unless I am mistunderstanding how they'd convert or something else here. The math is complicated (which I guess is the whole point of why moving to post-money will improve founders' understanding).
In addition to Michael's point, the other thing that we're seeing is that sometimes people will voluntarily push a priced seed round in order to convert existing premoney cap safes -- because they have no idea what the cap table really looks like.
Interesting. Anecdotally, I have seen the opposite, where a company will raise multiple layers of SAFEs since pre-money SAFEs get diluted as you add more SAFEs, and you don't need to negotiate board seats or any control terms with a SAFE round. But obviously you have seen the real data on what co's are doing, not just a few anecdotes!
95% of tasks are courier pickup/dropoff within the metro Boston area. Traditional couriers require calling, getting quotes etc. Taskrabbit allows me to quickly find a courier (sometimes even within 60 minutes) that's vetted, reviewed, and professional. The app allows me to message/call them and has all my credit card information saved. Everything is done from my phone or browser (note: no paperwork). The experience is always better and cheaper than a 'professional' courier company.
EDIT: I usually pay $40-$90 for a metro Boston pickup/dropoff (about 1-2 hours of driving time). The app has an endless stream of sponsored promo codes (e.g. this week's 'The American Housewife' TV show $50 promo code) that almost always subsidize the service and ensures that I don't pay full price.
Lately, I've been thinking about the opportunity to create an Uber-like service that lowers prices by providing in-ride advertisements. Personally, I wouldn't mind a few ads if it means that I'll pay 50% less for my ride.
Sharp thinking. Our business (GovPredict) is built around structuring fragmented government data. We've profited a great deal by it, and have some bandwidth and the inclination to now perform a public service and give the public access to a good deal of formerly unnavigable data.
His linkedin claims he took 1 Stanford class, and the notes he claims he wrote were clearly written by someone else (it's on Sukru Burc Eryilmaz's personal page).
He went to Florida Atlantic University for his Bachelor's degree. He gets a nice headline in his education as Stanford, but he definitely did not attend for any degree.
My anecdotal evidence is that VC is more a "operator turned VC" now than ever before. VC used to be all MBAs / finance types (e.g., head of tech research at an investment bank). But every year, it is harder and harder to become a VC partner without significant operating experience. I am not sure who has hard stats on this though.
I disagree and believe this should be better for founders. Demo Day works so well because it's a forcing function for getting a lot of investors to see you at once and make a decision quickly, because so many other investors are deciding at the same time. Typically, investors want a long time to consider a company, and they only move fast if someone is / might bid against them. Scheduling meetings post-Demo Day is tough, and most people do it sub-optimally (by scheduling them too far apart). This new system makes meetings happen faster and more per day, increasing a chance of getting a bite quickly, which should lead to a higher chance of closing the round.
The downside I see is that if you are bad at meeting investors / need to iterate on your pitch, these meetings won't allow you to do that, as they'll be over before you can rethink it. But I think it's generally worth more / faster meetings.
*As another investor pointed out, 20 minute meetings may also be too short. I am not sure what the optimal meeting length should be. 30 minutes might be better. 1 hour is probably too long (you can always schedule a follow up meeting).
