I think what's this post is missing is some context, Jeremie is running one of the most active seed fund in the world (200 investments is no feat) and they have a stellar reputation which is why I approached him - I did some due diligence with other entrepreneurs who provided me great recommendations as well.
Jeremie turned us down for various reasons but did in a timely manner and was being very honest about it (no sugar-coating or stalling the process to keep the door open like most VCs do).
I think if you're looking to take money from an unknown investor (who has made almost no investment), you should be doing your due diligence. However with a network of 200 backed companies - making a due diligence can be fast and take just a few days and I also think you should do that prior applying to Kima15 via Angellist.
Some cite the valuation not being favorable, however there are stages when your company is so immature and early that you shouldn't worry about over-optimizing for valuation and rather take some money at a lower valuation and move fast in order to make great progress that will let you close more money at a significantly higher valuation. If you are looking to build a company which might be the $100M-$1B valuation range then that low valuation will not have any significant impact on your outcome.
It is also very refreshing to see a seed fund publishing a SLA - I am looking at this as a very clever marketing feature - now people will remember Kima as the first seed fund that agreed to commit for a SLA for giving you an answer - one of the biggest pain in raising funds.
If it's your only option for money, then sure - though if you're that ready for investment where a firm will give you a response/money within 15 days (along with what due diligence are they doing on you?) then you should likely shop around. $150k for 14%, 13%, 12%?
Obviously it doesn't just come down to %. I'd rather give some people 10% or 15% or more if they were the right fit. :)
So overall it's a moot point, but it's also not in some circumstances. :)
There's Jeremie's public negative statements about a company they invested in (Sparrow): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4277331.
They're also very price sensitive, which can create resentment even in companies that take their money.
If they are approaching you and are trying to negotiate a lower price while other investors are on board on a higher valuation (I saw this happens quite a lot), I think that would be the kind of behavior that would create resentment both on the other investors and founders side.
However I haven't experienced it and my experience was that they turned me down because my valuation was too high for them and out of their comfort zone - did they try to negotiate me to a lower valuation? No.
Good luck!
A "one size fits all" approach like what they're pushing sounds more like a pay day loan than a legitimate business partnership.
I worked with a startup that took a $150k seed-stage investment on a $1m valuation, but the terms and the investors were terrible. My partners and I were too inexperience to know we were being ripped off until the time came to raise real money and our first investors were blocking every funding attempt and giving us "counter offers" at significantly worse terms.
I'm not saying these people are doing this, or even that it's a bad deal, but I would advise serious caution and diligence in matters of fund-raising. It's worth spending more than 15 days to get a deal right. Properly funding a business is not a "distraction;" it's a primary component in running a business.
Nope, we are not doing it ;-) Check my Angellist profile: http://angel.co/jberrebi
We have a very good reputation in this market and are helpful! You can check!
I know nothing of Kima itself, they could be great or terrible investors - but that seems orthogonal to this idea which could makes sense for both parties in many cases.
Kima Ventures has simply understood that and has solved that problem.
There are a lot of startups for whom it would be detrimental to have investors who want to have a say in their startup, but who would have a lot of benefit make big progress by getting $150k fast.
If you position yourself as the brand to get all these startups, you will inevitably scoop up some of the really big hitters.
Standoffish arrogance in VCs is unpleasant, but it can signal that the VC is so successful that he or she doesn't need to be nice.
If only the straightforward approach worked!
I'd certainly prefer a situation where no one has to do this, much less VCs!
If I were to go out on my own, I'd quite possibly take those numbers ($150k for 15%) pre-MVP if it meant 2 years of autonomy. I wouldn't give a board seat up, though. I also think $100-150k per founder is a more reasonable infusion (1-2 years).
This is much better than incubator terms, and if I had this before committing to a incubator, I would have done this instead.
