为独立创始人提供资金的新方式？
我敢说，“前种子融资”正在走向衰亡。或许下一个独角兽不再是唯一的目标。
让我来解释一下。在Gian Segato的精彩文章《机构吞噬世界》中，他展示了人工智能如何为高效能的创始人提供强大支持，并且机构的作用大于智力。我想以此为起点，说明“创业创始人”的转变即将颠覆风险投资行业。
如果一个创始人不需要团队几个月来测试一个想法，而是能够在几周内独自完成，那为什么还要费心制作一个前种子融资的演示文稿呢？
如果他们成功了，有两个选择：
1. 融资种子轮
2. 继续独立发展
我敢打赌，很多人会选择第二个选项。因为——老实说——融资的过程很糟糕。其次，并不是所有的新创公司都需要风险投资的资金。而那些确实需要（并符合条件）的种子轮融资的公司，其估值将会飙升——种子轮融资将开始看起来更像是A轮融资。
那么我们在这里得到了什么？
成千上万的高利润企业即将诞生。它们中的大多数不需要你的（风险投资）资金。像John Rush和Marc Lou这样的人正在证明这一点。而且，是的，在他们之中，肯定会有一个“圣杯”，一个独立的独角兽。
这就是变化。这就是我们所知的前种子融资的终结。现在我想问一些问题——并提出一些，尽管较少的，答案。
首先：早期风险投资者还能参与其中吗？
我的看法是——可以，如果你在“早期”阶段更早一些。投资的对象不是初创公司，而是人。
是的，优秀的创始人能够克服困难，变得更强大，这些都是伟大传记电影的素材。但实际上——99个潜在的优秀创始人在成功前的最后一步就破产了。我们只是不知道他们的故事。这是生活的残酷数学。在很多情况下，他们的问题本可以通过他们没有的资金解决。不是商业问题——而是基本的生活问题。亲人的疾病。耗尽精力的日常工作。又一次错过的房租支付成为压倒骆驼的最后一根稻草。
如果我们用每月的支票支持高效能的创始人一年，让他们全力以赴，会怎样？
投资者可以建立一个“天使指数”，专注于极具盈利能力的独立经营企业，而不是追逐独角兽。
这就是我创业公司SomeGuys.VC的理念——一个为高效能独立创始人提供众筹的平台。但我并不是来推销它的。
问题是——我们还没有所有的答案。例如，即使我们仍在谈论股权，但我所描述的初创公司可能永远不会出售——没有“流动性事件”。它们将成为现金机器，产生分红的企业。
我们是否拥有合适的机制？SAFE似乎不适合这里。
我在考虑早期投资者与创始人之间的收入分享协议。但它们应该是什么样的？应该是终身的吗？什么是公平的份额？如何合法执行？或者只是一个创始人回购条款——内置一个倍数。
我真的相信这些问题很重要。
风险投资在最佳状态下，是一股向善的力量。而现在，它可能会产生更大的影响，帮助比以往更多的人。
在人工智能出现之前，这种融资是不够的。但现在是可行的。
而且这不仅仅是科技。想象一下，最近的电影学院毕业生发布了一部由人工智能生成的电影，里面有新的、独特的英雄，推出了一个新系列。教师们正在发明新的教育方式。一位博士生在使用最新的语言模型几周后，提出了自己领域的革命性方法。还有我们尚未想象的事情。
这个想法似乎最近在聪明人的脑海中流行开来。比如，Garry Tan和YC最近推出了一个针对学生的项目，提供2万美元，让他们能够将夏天的时间投入到自己热爱的事情中。我们建议更进一步。
人工智能将改变一切。风险投资也不例外。我们很想听听你对此的看法。
查看原文
I dare to say that ‘Pre-Seed funding’ is dying. And maybe the next unicorn isn’t the only target anymore.<p>Let me explain.
In ‘Agency Eating the World’ - a brilliant article by Gian Segato - he shows how AI supercharges high-agency founders, and that Agency > Intelligence. I want to use this as a starting point to show how the shift in ‘startup founders’ is about to flip the VC industry.<p>If a founder doesn’t need a team for several months to test an idea, but instead can do it all themselves in a few weeks, then why bother crafting a pre-seed deck?<p>Then, if they succeed, there are two options:
1. Raise seed
2. Continue to go solo<p>I bet a lot of them will choose option two. Because - and I’ll be honest - fundraising sucks (as a process). Second, not all of these new startups need VC money. And those who do go for (and are eligible for) seed will skyrocket their valuations - seed will start to look more like a Series A.<p>So what do we have here?
Thousands of hyper-profitable businesses are about to be born. Most of them don’t need your (VC) money. Guys like John Rush and Marc Lou are showing it’s possible right now. And yes, somewhere among them, there’s bound to be a Holy-Grail, One-Person Unicorn.<p>That’s the change. That’s the death of pre-seed as we know it. Now I want to ask some questions - and suggest some, though fewer, answers.<p>First: can early-stage VCs still be a part of it?
My take is - yes, if you go even earlier in that ‘early’ part. Fund not startups, but people.<p>Yes, great founders push through struggles, come out stronger, and all that stuff that makes for a great biopic. But in reality - 99 other potentially great founders broke just a step before the win. We just don’t know their stories. It’s the cruel math of life. And in a lot of cases, their problems could have been solved with money they didn’t have. Not business problems - basic, life problems. A loved one’s illness. A draining day job. Another missed rent payment becomes the last straw.<p><i>What if we backed high-agency founders with a monthly check for a year so they could go all-in?<p>Instead of chasing unicorns, investors could build an "Angel Index" of extremely profitable, solo-run businesses.</i><p>That’s the idea behind my startup - SomeGuys.VC - a Kickstarter for High-Agency Solo-Founders. But I’m not here to pitch it.
The thing is - we don’t have all the answers yet. For example, even we keep talking in terms of equity. But the startups I’m describing might never be for sale -> no ‘liquidity event’. They’re going to be cash machines, dividend-generating businesses.<p>Do we even have the right mechanisms for that? SAFE doesn’t seem to fit here.
I’m thinking about revenue-share agreements between early investors and founders. But what should they look like? Should they be lifetime? What’s a fair share? How do you legally enforce it? Or simply a founder buyback clause - with a multiplier built in.<p>I really believe that these questions matter.
VC, at its best, is a force for good. And now it could have an even bigger impact, helping way more people than before.
It just wasn’t possible before AI - such funding wasn’t enough. But now it is.<p>And it’s not just tech. Imagine a recent film school grad dropping an AI-generated movie with new, unique heroes, launching a new franchise. Teachers are inventing new ways to educate. A PhD student is coming up with a revolutionary approach in their field after weeks of using the latest LLM. And things we can’t imagine yet.<p>This idea seems to be couchsurfing through the minds of bright people lately. I.e. Garry Tan and YC recently launched a program for students, offering 20k so they can dedicate their summer to building something they’re passionate about. We suggest taking it one step further.<p>AI is going to change everything. VC is no exception. We'd love to hear your thoughts on that.