I wish the anon founder would consider outing the people in question: http://qr.ae/KplIm
And somebody needs to create theFunded 2.0 so we can keep track of the slime.
I wish the anon founder would consider outing the people in question: http://qr.ae/KplIm
And somebody needs to create theFunded 2.0 so we can keep track of the slime.
Most reasonable people would say "No, thank you" and walk away.
I think you're confusing handing over with due diligence. The investor may just wanted the startup to prove that they in fact had a proprietary algorithm.
I HAVE worked at a startup that boasted to the press, partners and investors that they had a "big data" algorithm that was in fact bullshit.
<p>I've actually done that exact thing — and it worked.</p>
Same here!
Due diligence happens after a term sheet is signed but before the deal is done- and even then, I wouldn't hand anything over.
You should be able to prove that your algorithm works without handing it over.
Thats the reason why so many startups get away with bullshit claims.
Exactly! The post at source clearly states that the investors wanted the algorithm, which is rubbish. All that's required is a demonstration and if the investors still don't believe it, they they should walk away. It's either you trust the team or you don't.