Loading...
Answers
MenuLaunch first startup full-time at 20 years old? Or do an exchange in Australia? Very conflicted so any advice is greatly appreciated.
I have the opportunity to launch my first startup in the Toronto/GTA area. I am confident in my idea and there is a ton of support for a startup like mine. However I am only 20 years old and still a little scared to put it all on the line. I also have the opportunity to travel to Australia for an exchange and I think it would be amazing. However the opportunity cost would be putting my startup on hold for the time being.
Answers


Does your startup absolutely require that you be in Toronto? Why not do both? Take the opportunity of the exchange and start working on your startup on the side (and be ready to get into it in full force when the exchange is finished).
I started a company when I was 18 and was traveling the world before I turned 21. I still travel now whenever I feel like, and it has not negatively impacted me in business. In fact, I think it has had a very positive effect as I've learned countless things about people and global markets.
Happy to discuss more over a call if you'd like.
Go to Australia.
You have your whole life to make money. Pick it up when you get back or find something else to do.


If you have to choose between one or the other I would travel now and build something later. You'll have more experience and meet new people while you are away. There's really no "right" answer here. You've stumbled upon microsm of life. If you truly value travel but this startup keeps you in one location then maybe it's a sign that it's not the best for you. As Jim Collins says "a once in a lifetime opportunity is fact, but not a reason".
Watch these videos (or read the transcripts). It may be hard to believe, but quite literally all the answers to all your questions are here! It's a mountain of gold: http://startupclass.samaltman.com
Related Questions
-
What is the average series A funding round at pre revenue valuation for a enterprise start up w/cutting edge tech on verge of our first client.
With all respect to Dan, I'm not seeing anything like that. You said "pre-revenue." If it's pre-revenue and enterprise, you don't have anything proven yet. You would have to have an insanely interesting story with a group of founders and execs on board with ridiculous competitive advantage built in. I have seen a few of those companies. It's more like $3m-$5m pre. Now, post-revenue is different. I've seen enterprise plays with $500k-$1m revenue/yr, still very early (because in the enterprise space that's not a lot of customers yet), getting $8m-$15m post in an A-round. I do agree there's no "average." Finally, you will hit the Series A Crunch issue, which is that for every company like yours with "cutting edge tech" as-yet-unproven, there's 10 which also have cutting edge tech except they have customers, revenue, etc.. So in this case, it's not a matter of valuation, but a matter of getting funded at all!
-
What does it mean to 'grandfather you in' in the tech world?
It stands for allowing someone to continue doing or use something that is normally no longer permitted (due to changing regulations, internal rules etc.)
-
For every success story in Silicon Valley, how many are there that fail?
It all depends on what one decides to be a definition of a "success story." For some entrepreneurs, it might be getting acqui-hired, for some -- a $10M exit, for some -- a $200M exit, and for others -- an IPO. Based on the numbers I have anecdotally heard in conversations over the last decade or so, VCs fund about 1 in 350 ventures they see, and of all of these funded ventures, only about 1 in 10 become really successful (i.e. have a big exit or a successful IPO.) So you are looking at a 1 in 3500 chance of eventual venture success among all of the companies that try to get VC funding. (To put this number in perspective, US VCs invest in about 3000-3500 companies every year.) In addition, there might be a few others (say, maybe another 1-2 in every 10 companies that get VC investments) that get "decent" exits along the way, and hence could be categorized as somewhat successful depending on, again, how one chooses to define what qualifies as a "success story." Finally, there might also be companies that may never need or get around to seeking VC funding. One can, of course, find holes in the simplifying assumptions I have made here, but it doesn't really matter if that number instead is 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000. The basic point being made here is just that the odds are heavily stacked against new ventures being successful. But that's also one of the distinguishing characteristics of entrepreneurs -- to go ahead and try to bring their idea to life despite the heavy odds. Sources of some of the numbers: http://www.nvca.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ven... https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTP... http://paulgraham.com/future.html Here are others' calculations of the odds that lead to a similar conclusion: 1.Dear Entrepreneurs: Here's How Bad Your Odds Of Success Are http://www.businessinsider.com/startup-odds-of-success-2013-5 2.Why 99.997% Of Entrepreneurs May Want To Postpone Or Avoid VC -- Even If You Can Get It http://www.forbes.com/sites/dileeprao/2013/07/29/why-99-997-of-entrepreneurs-may-want-to-postpone-or-avoid-vc-even-if-you-can-get-it/
-
What percentage of VC funded startups make it to 100m+ revenues in 5 years or less?
100M+ in revenues in 5 years or less does not happen very often. As an example of one sector, here is an interesting data visualization (circa 2008) of the 100 largest publically traded software companies at that time that shows their actual revenue ramp-ups from SEC filings (only 4 out of these 100 successful companies managed this feat, which themselves are an extremely small percentage of all of the VC-funded software companies): How Long Does it Take to Build a Technology Empire? http://ipo-dashboards.com/wordpress/2009/08/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-technology-empire/ Key findings excerpted from the link above: "Only 28% of the nation’s most successful public software empires were rocketships. I’ve defined a rocket ship as a company that reached $50 million in annual sales in 6 years or less (this is the type of growth that typically appears in VC-funded business plans). A hot shot reaches $50m in 7 to 12 years. A slow burner takes 13 years or more. Interestingly, 50% of these companies took 9 or more years to reach $50m in revenue."
-
how to start earning on clarity.fm
Most of the earnings come from the people you are in contact with. The platform is not that big at the moment but it can be earned. My recommendation is to create content on your private page web, facebook, instagram ... and leave a clarity link through your work. If you need extra help call me for 15 minutes.