We can't fault founders for building a profitable business and taking cheap money before the growth tails off. But shouldn't there be some evidence of a viable master plan to spend that $30m turning it into a $300 million business for it to be an investible opportunity? I can't help thinking the "ephemeral crap" market is looking highly competitive and that the competition is more sophisticated and addictive.
But shouldn't there be some evidence of a viable master plan to spend that $30m turning it into a $300 million business for it to be an investible opportunity?
