What's the best visual format to display the size of the market when doing a pitch deck.

It entirely depends on the kind of business you have. If you have a tech startup for example, there are pretty reliable assumptions about each round of funding. And a business plan and financial forecasts are almost totally irrelevant to sophisticated tech investors in the early stages of a company's life. Recent financial history is important if the company is already generating revenue and in that case, a twelve-month projection is also meaningful, but pre-revenue, financial forecasts in tech startups mean nothing. You shouldn't give up more than 10-15% for your first $100,000 and from that point forward, you should budget between 10-20% dilution per each round of subsequent dilution. In a tech startup, you should be more nervous about dilution than control. The reality of it is that until at least a meaningful amount of traction is reached, no one is likely to care about taking control of the venture. If the founding team screws-up, it's likely that there will be very little energy from anyone else in trying to take-over and fix those problems. Kevin is correct in that the board is elected by shareholders but, a board exerts a lot of influence on a company as time goes-on. So board seats shouldn't be given lightly. A single bad or ineffective board member can wreak havoc on a company, especially in the early stages of a company's life. In companies outside of tech, you're likely going to be dealing with valuations that are far lower, thus likely to be impacted with greater dilution and also potentially far more restrictive and onerous investment terms. If your company is a tech company, I'm happy to talk to you about the financing process. I am a startup entrepreneur who has recently raised angel and VC capital and was also formerly a VC as part of a $500,000,000 investment fund investing in every stage of tech and education companies.

I'm both an active angel investor and entrepreneur who has recently raised capital. I'll start with what is standard in Silicon Valley and then apply various multiples and discounts where relevant. For an angel or early seed round, the current going rate is $3m-$5m pre-money via a capped note or priced round. Priced Rounds typically most often use the "Series Seed" docs and Convertible Notes typically are 18-24 month terms with a 15% discount. I don't mean to be argumentative but Marco is incorrect that valuation can be avoided by a capped note. And in general, there is no way to avoid setting a valuation except via an uncapped note, which is almost unheard of. Setting your cap and discount will have a significant impact on your cap structure, the same (and in some cases) worse than a priced round. This $3m - $5m range is what I'd call current market value in the valley for "ideation-stage" capital. This is that there is a team in place, typically some form of MVP and in some cases some very basic market data supporting the general thesis of the raise. In the other market I'm familiar with (Canada), the range for the same stage of capital is $1m - $3 with most being in between $1m and $2m and most preferring priced rounds over notes. These rounds rarely have a real lead since the raise is typically $500k or less, so if you price it reasonably, most (good) angels will accept the terms as is. The low and high end of the ranges are discounted and pushed by the credibility presented most often by the team (done it before, worked for a notable company, had some relevant success) or strong evidence of the thesis being correct. It's also the Founder's option to price the round at the top end of reasonable or provide what you might consider a discount, depending on the kind of investors you are courting. So while this is what I'm seeing as "current market conditions" there is price elasticity in any market. The best way you know if you've priced it right, is if people are buying. Any angel investor should be able to give you a conditional answer after the first meeting (subject to playing with the product, reading terms, meeting the rest of the team). Any angel investor in ideation stage capital who can't give you a yes, no or subject-to yes in the first meeting is not worth pursuing IMO. Any investor who can't close within 3 meetings or conversations won't close (9 times out of 10). Happy to talk to you about the specifics of where you're at, what might help you improve your odds and generally get you closer to the point where you're ready to raise.

Short answer: Of course! Many angel groups require you to submit through Gust because it offers a consistency and makes reviewing applications easier. But not all use Gust same as not all use AngelList... I haven't met an angel who frowns upon using multiple platforms. I would encourage you to leverage your twitter and Facebook or Instagram to meet angels and get in their radar (don't hassle or stalk) just try to get exposed a bit to them by being part of the same meetup group, follow the same blog, membership... Subscribe to their own blog.. And when you submit funding request considerations do please send a follow up email or a call or basket of fruits if you have contact them before.

Stop thinking you don't have the skills to do something. You can learn anything if you decide to, but assuming up front that you can't (forever) is dangerous. my2cents

What of the following things does your startup have? > Founders who have graduated from prestigious universities / previously exited companies to known acquirers / worked for a known companies (with known being a brand-name company such as Google, Amazon, Facebook etc) > Three or more months of statistically meaningful growth (e.g. for easy sake, double digit growth of a number in the thousands) > At least one investor who is active on AngelList (defined in the ideal state by at least one investment in a company who raised their round through AngelList and ideally whose social graph is connected to "high signal" members of the AngelList network) If you have none of these things, then at least, have advisors and referrers who have a strong AngelList profile. And another option is to seek out the AngelList scouts and pitch them directly. They are more open to this than anyone else and I've seen companies with very little traction and very little social proof get featured because a scout believes in the founder and/or the story. Without any or most of the above, it will be difficult to stand out or build relationships via AngelList, in my opinion. I assume now AngelList operates on a concept similar to the LinkedIn "degrees of connection" model, whereby an entrepreneur can now send unsolicited messages to investors so long as there is a degree of connection between the investor and the company. I get a few unsolicited emails a week from companies whose advisers or investors aren't people I follow but that because of the way they determine "connection strength", these unsolicited emails still gain my attention. I assume this is the case for all investors. So the more that you can build your list of advisers and referrers, the more connections you can solicit. That said, AngelList's inbound email system is almost entirely ineffective for "cold" emails to really high-profile investors. Happy to share with you what I think to be your best options for raising profile for your company.