Serious question---when you say "Angel Investor Territory"---you're meaning that they're agreeing to incredibly early-stage terms (SAFE, et. al.) with almost barely trackable revenue and certainly no EDBITA to speak of? And with all those unknowns, as is the case in the Angel Space (not seed, not VC)...they're still stroking $50mm equity tranches? I mean I know there are $50mm checks going out, but they're going out to operators that are quite along down the revenue path. Angel/Seed to me means there's nothing coming in yet, it's almost completely unproven and that doesn't usually mean $75mm equity strokes before any of the other cap stack comes into play. I've seen this in other sectors, but I am would be extremely curious to learn more about your slice. If you're doing pre-revenue angel for mid-to-high 7 figures, I'd like to talk to you about seeing those term sheets and being a possible post-EDBITA equity slice. I didn't know you could do angel money in this climate at that high a ticket price. Kudos.
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Thread starter Namewithheld
- Start date
Serious question---when you say "Angel Investor Territory"---you're meaning that they're agreeing to incredibly early-stage terms (SAFE, et. al.) with almost barely trackable revenue and certainly no EDBITA to speak of? And with all those unknowns, as is the case in the Angel Space (not seed, not VC)...they're still stroking $50mm equity tranches? I mean I know there are $50mm checks going out, but they're going out to operators that are quite along down the revenue path. Angel/Seed to me means there's nothing coming in yet, it's almost completely unproven and that doesn't usually mean $75mm equity strokes before any of the other cap stack comes into play. I've seen this in other sectors, but I am would be extremely curious to learn more about your slice. If you're doing pre-revenue angel for mid-to-high 7 figures, I'd like to talk to you about seeing those term sheets and being a possible post-EDBITA equity slice. I didn't know you could do angel money in this climate at that high a ticket price. Kudos.
By NMU, do you mean UNM Lobos? I'm from Illinois.
AC
2,500+ Posts
theLobo - I sent you a PM.
Maybe he just like dressing in these:
Fair point. I'll reply to the PM sent by AC and fill him in on the origin of the name.
And yes, I've gotten one of those wolf shirts before as a gag gift for my birthday in late May. And the front graphics were all just one contiguous matted adhesive that was like wearing polyester in the summertime. It looked cool but it was hot as hell to wear.
Off to see what's new in NG this morning...
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
Given that we're talking about two subsets of a very large set, not sure if that correlates much.
I think all those kids would strongly agree that someone needs to clean up after them.
I was thinking about this the other day. What bugs me about the "experts" on both of these issues isn't that they've gotten some things wrong. They're still human beings. We all get things wrong, myself included. What bugs me is that they expect a degree of deference that should only be given to people who are seldom or never wrong. They don't understand that the more often you're wrong, the less deference you'll receive, and that's compounded even further when you're demanding that people take actions that threaten to destroy their economic condition. They think their credentials should change that dynamic, but they don't.
And no, that isn't "anti-science" or "denialism." It's a rational human response. The credentials only matter if they're backed up by your record. If everything I told my clients turned out to be wrong, they wouldn't take me very seriously. Saying, "but look at the license and JD on the wall. I even had them put in fancy frames" wouldn't make a difference.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Deez, to your point, people, scientists, models have inaccuracy. The problem is that those who "believe science" don't allow the models to be properly vetted. I have listened to climate scientists discuss how the models have never been analyzed. They have obvious errors which have been identified in the industry. But any time issues are raised, they are ignored. The truthfulness of the models are not defended. They are merely assumed. They are wrong.
They don't want the models questioned at all, because that suggests fallibility. And of course, fallibility demands less deference than infallibility. They'd rather have a media and political class that assumes their infallibility, dismisses and ridicules those who challenge them, and then erases history when the models turn out to be wrong.
The models are used for persuasion, not for prediction. As such, most model proponents will persuade over and above what is prudent just in case (see what happened with the virus models). The best response which gets them really mad is to call them alarmist.
Same for wind mills and solar panels
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
One of the worst things about wind and solar is that the kWh/land area is SUPER low. It won't work anyway, because they are unreliable and expensive. But even if that wasn't a problem you would have to cut down the rest of the forests and parks to fill that land with solar and wind farms in order to provide enough energy, just for today's demand. Wind and solar are a complete waste of time.
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
Not only does that not fit the cliche in the first place, but....
"Karen" *takes a shot
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
