Seedrs investment

The two Microcosm rounds on Seedrs have dragged a lot of LFGSS folks onto the site. Some of you, like me, may have stuck the odd tenner into other startups. Maybe it would be good to have a place to discuss the non-Microcosm investment pitches on there?

I attended their event tonight.

the most insightful element was their (Seedrs) considering seeking additional funding on their own platform...

The pitches were better in quality tonight than previously.

Who stood out for you?

I've been peering at a few other places on there. I'm mostly thinking of throwing tiny amounts around. I quite like the look of chargepuck, and think that it's a solid idea. It's certainly a neat solution to a problem that I've run into a few times.

I've been peering at a few other places on there. I'm mostly thinking of throwing tiny amounts around. I quite like the look of chargepuck, and think that it's a solid idea. It's certainly a neat solution to a problem that I've run into a few times.

I gave the Chargepuck guy a tenner. His round isn't doing very well though...

PixelPin got name-checked in the Economist, which is the first time I've seen any mention of a Seedrs-funded company in the wild for reasons unrelated to fund raising.

This article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/13/picture_passwords/) seemed like an important one about picture passwords

There is also another problem: Getting sites to use the picture passwords.

It's well known in UX circles that every question you ask someone will see a 10% drop in the number of people proceeding past that point. And in the case of non-intuitive and complex login mechanisms (such as questions during login to test whether you are human, or captchas) the drop-off rate can be as much as 30%.

Relying on pictures will see a large-drop off in those able/wanting to login.

My biggest concern with PixelPin, unaddressed by the founder when I asked him at a drinks thing, is whether he can get that number down low enough that those web sites that do try Pixel Pin stick with it.

Simply: If he has low customer retention due to lowering engagement on his customer web sites, then all of his funds will permanently be consumed by a sales team attempting to boost revenue (in the short-term).

I also wonder how long it will be before Apple introduce a keyboard with fingerprint recognition and then how long it will be before they try and make a move to be the password provider for the internet.

It will happen.

I tried the PixelPin demo
Was difficult to set the points
It reminded me of the Spot the ball game:

Anyone see this?

https://twitter.com/Seedrs/status/382556927471124481

What does that mean?

My guess it is a company that wanted to offer shares to its mates, which probably counts as an "offer to the public" and so would have all of the horrible extra regulation to comply. Instead they used seedrs software and regulatory umbrella (and paid the fees)(or some level of them) to make the offer to their mates, but didn't bother offering it to the public proper.

I wonder what it was.

A lot more common than you might think... and as always google fu is your friend.

They raised money through friends + family + angels, and wanted to use the Seedrs structure to take care of the actual payment processing, legal paperwork, to benefit from the nominee share structure, etc.

Thus... they were never publicly listed on Seedrs, and it all just happened behind the scenes.

Otherwise known as a "syndicate round" rather than a "equity crowdfunding round".

Syndicate rounds are actually really common. The vast majority of early rounds (before crowdfunding came along and even now) are syndicate rounds.

It's a strange one for Seedrs as it suggests that they're open to be the facilitator for all investment rounds and not just the ones open to the public. Nothing special about a syndicate round, but interesting that Seedrs are doing it.

Microcosm could probably have run a syndicate round. +velocio, did you know this was an option?

(Why wouldn't seedrs do this as it is easy money for them?)

I've always known it was possible, but I didn't truly know that we had enough people to fully fund a syndicate round.

Any thought on the Bristol Webstart?

It got a mention on Techcrunch the other day - http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/06/seedrs-hedging-bets/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29

Couldn't possibly comment on any specific startups, but from an investors perspective really it isn't far from downright gambling, and statistically speaking a noticeable return on your money could easily be 10-20 years away, if at all, unless of course you're lucky enough to invest a large chunk of money in a company that goes skyrocketing in no time... It happens.

However, fact is that millions of pounds are lost are lost on startups on a daily basis, mainly by people who can afford it, but smalltime investors lose their money too. Duly noted some win, but the winners are few and far between.

In my opinion, compared to your typical investment bank, Seedrs maintain a relatively strong screening process before validating you as a potential investor. By all means invest in people, invest in ideas you believe in, but if you're looking for a relatively low risk short term return on your money, startups most definitely isn't for you.

Just saying...

There's nothing wrong with gambling; you've just got to pick the right horse to bet on.

This is reasonably interesting if you're into New Yorker style articles - How San Francisco’s new entrepreneurial culture is changing the country

Nothing wrong wit gambling... but the usual stakes apply.

So, the Million Pound Startup is being cancelled. Just got an email from Seedrs. They say that the calibre of entrants wasn't high enough, but I suspect that the prospect of not getting another £600k in a month also played a part in the decision - there was no way that they were going to hit the target and I was interested to see what would happen.

I now have a grand total of £16 to pop somewhere else! What about the tampon company?

Couldn't possibly comment on any specific startups, but from an investors perspective really it isn't far from downright gambling, and statistically speaking a noticeable return on your money could easily be 10-20 years away, if at all, unless of course you're lucky enough to invest a large chunk of money in a company that goes skyrocketing in no time... It happens.

However, fact is that millions of pounds are lost are lost on startups on a daily basis, mainly by people who can afford it, but smalltime investors lose their money too. Duly noted some win, but the winners are few and far between.

In my opinion, compared to your typical investment bank, Seedrs maintain a relatively strong screening process before validating you as a potential investor. By all means invest in people, invest in ideas you believe in, but if you're looking for a relatively low risk short term return on your money, startups most definitely isn't for you.

Just saying...

all true, but the SEIS mechanism minimises stake risk > http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100021654/where-high-earners-can-still-get-98pc-tax-relief-and-guaranteed-gains/

Fair point. But don't confuse startups with playing the stock market if you're looking at short term return of investment. Personally startups account for about 35 percent of my investment portfolio, which by virtually anyone's standards is insane. I invest in startups, if you can call it invest, predominantly because it's fun watching ideas come to life and hopefully become a commercially successful over time. I thoroughly enjoy it, but in terms of money, in effect I haven't seen a penny since I first started backing various startups and up and coming enterprises back in 1999.

I'm not and I'm not ;)

So I was going to post about Secure To Share to laugh at it's ridiculous marketing claptrap--post-quantum encryption, ha!

Turns out, though, it is a thing, and they actually look quite interesting. Though I'm not convinced by their robovoice screencast video, and the apps that they do have in the app store have never been reviewed/rated, so it's a good bet they've not sold many.