undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbigiain5y ago0 comments

> It's, more or less, impossible for them to do worse than $0.

Of course they can. They can do $0 _and_ fuck someone else's life over out of spite, vindictiveness, or company policy.

I'm with all the other poster saying what General Catalyst, while almost certainly at least party for self interested reasons, deserve praise and respect for doing this. I know with certainly that there's a bunch of people reading here who'll now move a General Catalyst offer/termsheet right up the top of their pile sometime in the next few years. I hope this works out well for both General Catalyst and for future startups and founders who work with them.

0 comments

switch115y ago

Yes, I fall into that category

I've had multiple offers to buy and invest. And always do your due diligence. One turned out to be a shell company - which means a bigger company secretly trying to low ball acquire my company

In some cases it's VCs or celebrities and you do your due diligence

At the end it comes down to one simple thing

If the VC feels this founder and his team worked very hard and not taking that $800,000 (or $800K + x) means those people will get a bit more (and for the company people it means a lot while for VC it means nothing

Then VC doing it is a genuinely good thing

Now consider what it means to someone considering General Catalyst

At best - they are great guys

At worst - they are smart

It also means for sure that they are not

parsimonious spiteful shortsighted vindictive penny wise and pound foolish

So now any founder taking investment from General Catalyst knows that there is a good chance that

General Catalyst are honest and reasonable They will not sabotage an exit to try and maximize their cut at the expense of founders

Is this deriving too much from a simple act?

Perhaps

However, in an industry where VCs are usually known for kicking out founders, this is a welcome change

rjyoungling5y ago

hear, hear

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse