Where can I find a list of reputable Silicon Valley serial founders, who are accepting advisory board membership for startups based in Southeast Asia?

An agency is an instant cashflow model business. Ugly to scale due to logistics of a team and the mess of being in a client-service business model. But easy to rapidly monetize. Make a phone call. Close a client. Collect the cash. (Yes, that's a bit over simplified). Your girlfriend shouldn't grab a dime from anyone before locking in her first client. An agency can be entirely self-funded and there's little reason to pursue funding. After she had generated her first $50,000 in clients (for example), she can supplement growth with debt financing. And, in no way, is the idea of your generous, retiring parents investing $70,000 into a first time business owner, when statistically most businesses fail ... a good idea. Fair rate is a flexible concept. If I was lending out $70k, I'd want to see 3x $210k back as a minimum. Irregardless of whether that is "fair"... it would be the minimum (for illustrative purposes) where the process of the due diligence and contracts and parting with $70k liquid in trade for a "maybe" $140k gain would be of interest.

If you and this person, *know* they won't be the CTO, then absolutely not. If there's an understanding that the engineer you are working with is going to "cap out" soon beyond the MVP, why would you ruin your cap table? This *should* help you get a reasonable amount of equity. http://foundrs.com/ The most crucial question is where this current contributor is likely going to be out of their element. Are they only front-end and have no back-end ability? If so, you really should raise (from a friend or family member) or borrow the money necessary to pay this person a reasonable cash rate. If on the other hand, they can take a successful MVP and build a reasonable back-end but will cap out on scaling it past 100,000 users, or for example, you're an enterprise company and you know you'll require a technical person to be part of closing early sales, then it's ok to give up meaningful equity. But another key question is: Are you ok to let this person define your company's engineering culture? If this person isn't capable of or comfortable managing your tech team in the early-days, this person should have no more than 10% equity. Of course, your shares and theirs (whatever you decide) should be subject to a vesting agreement (minimum 3 years and preferably 4). It's easy to give away equity when it's worth very little but as I've said here before on Clarity, imagine your company today being worth $100,000,000. Can you imagine this person contributing $20,000,000 worth of value to achieve that outcome? $30m? $50m? Here's the thing though. If this person can grow into a CTO, and wants the chance, and there's no warning signs that it will be a tough slog for them to get there, and they're a passionate believer in what's been built to date, then it's entirely reasonable to bet (with equity) that they can get there. I know a lot of CTO's of great Series A and beyond companies with amazing traction that started off as lacking a lot of the criteria of a great CTO candidate. This is an area I've helped coach a lot of startup CEOs through and have experience in myself. Happy to talk through in a call to understand the specifics of your scenario and provide more detailed advice.

You’re asking some great questions, and beyond the fact that there is no teacher as great as experience, it seems tragic how common this experience is, and making great investments is hard even for seasoned professionals. But it’s incredible how often the only two factors used to assess an investment are how much it will make, and how much they like (or know) the people running the deal, when just a few additional questions can often make all the difference. When looking at a new opportunity, the first thing I do is ask if I believe management’s story. This is really about getting a feel for whether you believe the people running the business or opportunity are qualified to exploit whatever inefficiency they have identified in the marketplace. If they can’t express in simple terms what that opportunity is, why they’re qualified to take advantage of it, and exactly how what they do will generate returns for the investor – run away. This is different than asking if I believe in the management, or like them – it’s about their ability to state in plain language their investment thesis, and back it up with the skills and tools needed to execute. Next, put it in context - consider the size of the opportunity and this investment’s place in it. Is it a big market, or small? Lots of competition or not? Does this investment bring something new to the space and will gains come from new business or is the plan to take it from existing competitors? If there are no crisp answers to these sizing questions, consider it a big red flag. The next bit is about understanding the risk of the investment. The single most common mistake made by investors is mis-pricing risk. Markets are pretty efficient, so there has to be a reason someone else isn’t already doing whatever this investment proposes to do and understanding what this dynamic is can be the single difference between good and bad investments. It may be that nobody has thought of it, or no one can do what this will do at the same low cost. Or there is an asymmetry of information, where you know something others in the market don’t yet know. Whatever it is, trying to understand the risk of the investment is key: understanding the timing of the probable returns, appreciating what could go wrong and how management will respond if it does, what change in the environment (like new laws, new competitors, new technology) could turn the deal on its head, and what assumptions need to remain true through the course of the investment. I’m not sure there is any way to get all of the right before making an investment, and surprises always happen, but the more work done to figure this part out can help determine whether the investment is worth making based on what its expected to return, and it often highlights something just plainly wrong with an investment. Finally, know that there are very few great investment opportunities relative to the number of absolute junk stories out there, and finding ones that make sense for your risk tolerance and timeline just takes work. And experience. And even when you get everything right, sometimes good investments still go bad.

The best time to raise capital for a startup is when you have a clear idea of what you want to do and a clear idea of how much money you need to get to a milestone that will set a higher value for your company. In general its better to bootstrap and do friends and family as long as you can, because the more mature and successful you are the better deal you will get from angels or VCs.

I know couple of businesses which could be of your interest to you. At the same time, since I have been 3-4 businesses simultaneously for quite sometime and also share similar vision like yours, Would you be interested in a short discussion? Fyi, I am also on the lookout of partners who can support hand in hand. Lets discuss...