In case you missed it, you can listen to the recording here: 468th 1Mby1M Roundtable December 19, 2019: With Karthee Madasamy, Mobile Foundation Ventures

___

Entrepreneurs are invited to the 469th FREE online 1Mby1M mentoring roundtable on Thursday, January 23, 2020, at 8 a.m. PST/11 a.m. EST/5 p.m. CET/9:30 p.m. India IST. If you are a serious...

___

HomeLane, a Bangalore-based startup that helps people manage home renovations and interior design, today announced it has raised $30 million in a new financing round as it looks to expand its proprietary technology.

The financing round, dubbed Series D, was led by Evolvence India Fund (EIF), Pidilite Group and FJ Labs. Existing investors Accel Partners, Sequoia Capital and JSW Ventures also participated in the round, which pushes the five-year-old startup’s all-time raise to $46 million.

HomeLane helps property owners furnish and install fixtures in their new apartments and houses. Interior designers need to be local to customers and supply chain partners need to have the capacity to ship to a location. So HomeLane has established 16 experience centers in seven Indian cities so consumers can touch and see materials and furniture.

The startup plans to use the fresh capital to broaden its technology infrastructure and expand to eight to 10 additional cities.

HomeLane competes with other online furniture sellers such as Livspace and Urban Ladder, as well as brick-and-mortar stores. Founders Rama Harinath and Srikanth Iyer say their startup differentiates by offering a one-stop shop — it sells everything from fitted kitchens and wardrobes to entertainment units and shoe racks — and by providing guaranteed on-time delivery and after-sale services to help homeowners finish projects.

The site allows property owners to upload floor plans, which are reviewed by interior designers who provide product suggestions, price quotes and 3D pictures of how furnishings and fixtures will look after they are installed. The startup, which has worked with more than 900 design experts to deliver over 6,000 projects, pays to the designers a fraction of the money it charges customers.

Iyer, who serves as the chief executive of HomeLane, claimed that the startup is inching closer to being EBIDTA profitable (which does not include taxes and a range of other expenses). That would be a notable turnaround for HomeLane, which reported a net loss of $4.1 million on revenue of $5.6 million in the financial year that ended in March 2018.

Prashanth Prakash, a partner at Accel India, said, “We are very happy with HomeLane’s current growth trajectory and are believers in the long-term growth prospects of the home improvement consumer segment in India.”

This feature from Vox/Recode, with the help of charts, looks back at the key technology tends that shaped 2019. For this week’s posts, click on the paragraph links. Tech Posts Cloud Stocks:...

___

Artificial intelligence is a powerful tool, but it’s not a magic wand. Applying the technology requires thought and dedication, especially with legacy industries like law and insurance, which are being taken on in this way by Luminance and Omnius respectively. The companies’ founders, Emily Foges and Sofie Quidenus-Wahlforss, spoke with great insight on this on stage at Disrupt Berlin.

Luminance uses AI and natural language processing to help law firms process documents more quickly, not replacing the lawyer but providing additional intelligence and analysis of what may be hundreds or thousands of pages and saving time and money. Omnius applies AI not just to the text of insurance claims, but to the process of handling them, ensuring rapidity not only in documentation but in results like payouts.

Omnius has raised about $30 million in multiple small rounds and grants, while Luminance has raised some $23M mainly in its A and B rounds.

I’ve edited and contextualized our conversation here, but you can also watch the full panel below. I’ve made some slight changes for readability but left things mostly intact. Pull quotes belonging to Emily are on the left, Sofie’s are on the right.

The first thing I wanted to hear from the founders was why they chose these industries, and why now? After all, law and insurance are notoriously old-fashioned, some would even say backwards in many ways. How could they be sure this was an opportunity, and not a folly?

Emily Foges (Luminance): It had more to do with the capabilities of the technology, actually. We started with technology that can read a lot of language, and then we looked at what industry would benefit most from that. It was that way around.

I think the timing is 80 percent of the battle; The fact that the legal profession had got to a point of being ready to accept the use of that kind of technology was more luck than anything. But there’s been such an explosion in enterprise data that lawyers just can’t possibly cope with reading and all of the documentation that they need to — so the market was ready.

Sofie Quidenus-Wahlforss (Omnius): I think we come from a very similar background. We started on a horizontal level, with deep document understanding, and at some point we understood, if you really want to ship business value, you need to dive into one vertical.

We have different verticals to choose: manufacturing, legal, pharma… so then we were like, okay, which area is the biggest that is not transformed yet? And do we see decision makers aware of the of the need to do something? And do they have money?

The insuretech world is of course making a lot of pressure, all the new insurance companies like Lemonade, WeFox, Coya, because they claim to settle a claim in minutes. So the big guys like Alliance, they got nervous. And on the other hand you see, on the technology side, improvements in the areas of computing power, way more access to data, more flexible models. So we thought, the industry is ready, the technology’s ready, I was ready to build a big company. It’s my fourth company and I was like, this time I’ll build something huge. So everything fell into place.

They don’t call them legacy industries for nothing, though. These domains, and some companies, that have existed for decades or even a century or more. That means legacy systems and legacy people, to put it kindly, that may not be amenable to change. Emily had some surprising stats on that, while Sofie advocated an AI-like approach to classifying and selecting clients.

Emily: Some of them are more ready than others, and I think the ones who aren’t ready need to really catch up, because we got to critical mass really quickly. We’re only three and a half years old, but we’ve got 185 law firms around the world signed up. The interesting thing was the most ready people were the law firms outside of the UK, outside of the US. It was European law firms, APAC-based law firms, South and Central American law firms who got on board first. They were more ready because to be honest, the commercial pressure was greater. And then the pressure on the US and UK law firms came from them.

Sofie: We thought, cool, the transformation is happening already. But after a while, 2018, we were like, okay, this market is not moving as fast as we thought . We looked at our proof of concept, our pilots we did with insurance companies and were like, wow, every big insurance company in Europe wants to have an AI pilot project but who’s really ready to start with AI full production?

And this is something I can really recommend for every startup trying to transform an industry from scratch: classifying your customers. Who is a laggard, who is an early adopter, who is early mainstream, is an innovator? Then we decided together with the board, okay, we’ll only focus on innovators and early adopters, and the rest should wait, or we can both wait for each other — but we cannot waste our time.

Every once in a while on VC Twitter, a comment or statement seems so outlandish, so completely outrageous, that it must be — certainly has to be — false. Such as it was for Primary Ventures investor Jason Shuman, who commented on the recent prices for pitch deck advice in the Valley today:

You can almost hear that plaintive scream, “My mind is officially blown” (Shuman doesn’t scream, mind you). And indeed, in a world where more and more founders are worried about a bubble; assets are more, let’s say, Notionally expensive than ever before; and everything just seems a little bit crazy these days, it seems downright, fucking insane to think that a PowerPoint file and some “thoughts” are worth tens of thousands of dollars, and a goddamn term sheet to boot.

But they are.

Or at the very least, they can be. And I say that as the guy who wrote an article last week entitled, “How to avoid the startup trap of the parasitic consultant.”

For sure, not every pitch deck consultant is worth top dollar, any more than not every croissant in New York’s West Village is worth $10. But some are, and certainly an elect chosen set of consultants are worth every penny they demand.

The best consultants are not luxuries to plaster on your WeWork’s walls, but critical tools to invest in your startup. Framing a startup’s thesis, product, team, and market exactly right is a qualitative skill that can’t be learned from reading a book or scanning through a founder friend’s deck or two. Get a single slide wrong, or hell, a single bullet point wrong and the whole thing can blow up in a pitch meeting in thirty seconds or less.

Trust me. As a former VC investor, I have gotten hung up on single sentences before. A founder has put their life’s work into a company, synoptically condensed it to a handful of slides, and I am stuck on eight words. But those eight words make no sense, and once something doesn’t make sense, the whole edifice of excitement and confidence comes crashing down. Eight words — one badly chosen verb and adjective.

A good pitch deck consultant may barely move the needle on a fundraise, while a superstar may not just get you a better term sheet, they may fundamentally transform the entire course of your startup’s trajectory. Those are the stakes.

And of course, it’s not just pitch deck consultants who can do this. The right PR consultants can potentially get you traction that no one else can. The right sales consultants may lock in those critical early design customers that represent the difference between an orderly liquidation and a massive Series A. The right product marketing specialists or pricing experts may be what drives conversions and eliminates churn.

What’s so hard today for founders is that the Valley has indeed matured, and all these consultants and more are available. There are the hucksters and the tricksters, the bon vivants thriving on naive capital, the idiot clowns cloaked in their own compelling pitch decks.

But as the market has expanded for these services, at least some superstars are emerging from the marketplace, people who can offer more value for you in a week or two than the mediocrities can in a year.

Your job as founder is to constantly probe and find those diamonds, and get them working on your idea at any cost — even costs that might at times seem insane.

The thing with tech startups today is that they are built upon strata of superstardom. Superstar talents lead to superstar products, superstar VC capital, and ultimately, superstar exits. Superstar momentum is real. Yes, yes, yes, not every time, and every stage in the pipeline is multiplied by a stochastic chance of failure, for sure. But idiocy has rarely been a path to success.

And so as with all parts of innovation, it’s all about making the right investments in the right people and the right ideas. $50K or even $500K for a consultant won’t do anything if they are the wrong person working on the wrong idea — parasites are parasites after all. But leverage that early seed capital into the right people working on the right problems, and that’s where the magic happens.

And so I can understand some of the outrage over these figures, as well as the lingering presumption behind them that VCs care more about a startup’s deck than the underlying startup itself. Those frustrations are palpable and not insane, but let’s not avoid the tough question: everything has some value attached to it. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that top experts in their fields, who understand their own leverage, would take advantage of their expertise and drive their own prices higher.

Paying tens of thousands of dollars for a pitch deck consultant isn’t a prerequisite for securing a venture capital round. There are founders whose entire skill is securing capital for their companies who have never paid a penny for this skill.

Yet ultimately, all early-stage startups face the same challenge: too many activities, too little time. Something, somewhere is going to have to get outsourced today and the quality of that external work is largely going to be determined by how much you are willing to pay for it. What you choose to spend whatever capital you have will determine the trajectory of your startup. So whether it is pitch decks or another activity, never blink from those top dollars. It may very well be what gets you the top dollar in the end.

TikTok may be the fastest-growing social network in the history of the internet, but it is also quickly becoming the fastest-growing security threat and thorn in the side of U.S. China hawks.

The latest, according to a notice published by the U.S. Navy this past week and reported on by Reuters and the South China Morning Post, is that TikTok will no longer be allowed to be installed on service members’ devices, or they may face expulsion from the military service’s intranet.

It’s just the latest example of the challenges facing the extremely popular app. Recently, Congress led by Missouri senator Josh Hawley demanded a national security review of TikTok and its Sequoia-backed parent company ByteDance, along with other tech companies that may share data with foreign governments like China. Concerns over the leaking of confidential communications recently led the U.S. government to demand the unwinding of the acquisition of gay social network app Grindr from its Chinese owner Beijing Kunlun.

The intensity of criticism on both sides of the Pacific has made it increasingly challenging to manage tech companies across the divide. As I recently discussed here on TechCrunch, Shutterstock has actively made it harder and harder to find photos deemed controversial by the Chinese government on its stock photography platform, a play to avoid losing a critical source of revenue.

We saw similar challenges with Google and its Project Dragonfly China-focused search engine as well as with the NBA.

What’s interesting here though is that companies on both sides are struggling with policy on both sides. Chinese companies like ByteDance are increasingly being targeted and stricken out of the U.S. market, while American companies have long struggled to get a foothold in the Middle Kingdom. That might be a more equal playing field than it has been in the past, but it is certainly a less free market than it could be.

While the trade fight between China and the U.S. continues, the damage will continue to fall on companies that fail to draw within the lines set by policymakers in both countries. Whether any tech company can bridge that divide in the future unfortunately remains to be seen.

I’m publishing this series on LinkedIn called Colors to explore a topic that I care deeply about: the Renaissance Mind. I am just as passionate about entrepreneurship, technology, and business, as I...

___

Cadenshae is an activewear company that targets the niche market of pregnant women and nursing moms. They ensure that pregnant women and mothers around the world can work out and feed their babies in...

___

PayKickstart is a SaaS company that is reinventing the modern-day shopping cart and affiliate management. Its platform helps thousands of businesses and entrepreneurs sell their products and/or...

___

I’m not a venture capitalist. I don’t play one on TV, either (though I might if anyone asked!). Still, after many years of covering startups, including as an editor with TechCrunch, in a daily newsletter I publish called StrictlyVC and at numerous media outlets before that (anyone remember the early years of Red Herring magazine?), there have always been startups that stand out a little more than others.

This is not to say that what I find intriguing will be a predictor of success. A lot of great ideas never find a broad or lucrative customer base. Some perish owing to mismanagement or misadventure(!) or good-old competition. Note, too, that what I’m about to feature is a small sampling of a much broader pool of companies I’d include if I had all the time in the world and you did, too.

I’m also keeping the focus on fairly young companies — they’re mostly only seed-funded at this point — that represent a wide variety of industries and markets and that (with one exception) disclosed their funding in the last couple of months, as did many hundreds of other startups.

What is interesting, and not intentional, is how few of these picks are based in the Bay Area — an amazing region in many ways, but also one that’s lost its earlier stranglehold on talent and great ideas.

Herewith, 10 recent standouts, at least to this particular brain.

Xilis. This Durham, N.C. company just yesterday announced a $3 million seed round to continue working on its microfluidic organoid technology. What does that mean? In this case, the company says its tech creates 10,000 micro tumors from a single cancer biopsy, then tests which cancer treatments will or won’t work for a patient — presumably expediting the time it takes to find the most effective treatment for that person. Can it cure cancer? Who knows, but the company was founded by Duke professors who are medical oncologists. They say that they’re also finding success already in clinical trials. My colleague Jon wrote about the company here.

Terradepth. It’s a 16-month-old, Austin, Texas-based company that was founded by two ex-Navy SEALs and aims to use autonomous submersible vehicles to provide access to deep-ocean information on a data-as-a-service basis, which I’d guess plenty of industries could use. The company just raised $8 million in funding led by Seagate Technology, the hardware company, and it has a number of competitors, but I like this idea directionally. Let’s face it —  oceans do cover roughly 70% of the Earth’s surface. Darrell wrote about this one earlier this week.

Apostrophe, an eight-year-old, Oakland, Calif.-based dermatology telemedicine startup that makes it easier to receive medications and treatments over the phone, announced $6 million in seed funding earlier this month led by SignalFire, with participation from FJ Labs. There are at least half a dozen other telemedicine companies focused on dermatology. I don’t pretend to know which is best. But given that skin is the largest organ we humans have, combined with the fact that ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth’s surface has steadily increased in recent decades owing to decreasing levels of stratospheric ozone, enabling people to get examined as quickly and conveniently as possible just makes sense. (By the way, if you’re wondering how Apostrophe specifically makes money, it also has a mail-order pharmacy.) Jordan wrote about Apostrophe here.

Conservation Labs. This one is a 3.5-year-old, Pittsburgh, Pa.-based startup whose tech takes measurements from a building’s pipes, then translates those signals to assess water flow estimates and detect leaks. The company has raised $1.7 million in seed funding, including from the Amazon Alexa Fund, and I like that it’s good for the world, good for building owners and tackling a very big industry. As the company itself is quick to note, there are more than three trillion gallons of water wasted each year in the U.S. alone, costing the country $70 billion.

Aircam. People are both vain and impatient, two reasons why on a very superficial level, I like this roughly two-year-old, Santa Monica, Calif.-based startup that allows anyone to get instant access to pictures taken by professional photographers at weddings, parties and other events. That its founders are brothers who sold their last company to Apple inspires some confidence, too. So far, the company has raised $6.5 million in seed funding led by Upfront Ventures, with participation from Comcast Ventures, and Anthony wrote about it last month.

BuildOps. This is a 1.5-year-old, Santa Monica, Calif.-based maker of a field service and business process software platform for small and mid-size subcontractors working in commercial real estate that has raised $5.8 million across two tranches of seed funding, including a round that closed this fall. BuildOps is one of an astonishing number of startups trying to take a bite out of the commercial construction industry, on which hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each year in the U.S. alone. It’s also targeting a segment of the market where there is no go-to player yet. While lots of architects, property owners and large general contractors are already reliant on different software packages, the small and medium-size contractors and subcontractors who work on buildings typically still operate in distinct silos, and they — along with building owners — could benefit greatly from software that brings together the overall picture so unnecessary missteps, miscommunications and expenses can be avoided. Jon had covered this one, too.

Medinas is a two-year-old, Berkeley, Calif.-based marketplace for reusable medical equipment, which is right now largely sold directly by equipment companies that mostly just list what they’re looking to sell in what seems like an awfully clunky approach. Medina instead works with dozens of medical centers to assess what they have, what they need and what they need to ditch, then handles all aspects of the sale, from early inventory checks to shipment and reinstallation. It’s a surprisingly big market (almost $38 billion, according to one market research group), but I also like that it’s helping developing regions in need of equipment, as Crunchbase News noted when it wrote about the company in October. Think CT scanners sent off to Cambodia, ventilators shipped to India and defibrillators packed off to Mexico. Medinas raised $5 million in seed funding a couple of months ago, led by NFX.

Mable. This year-old, Boston-based wholesale commerce platform is trying to help small food and grocery businesses stock their shelves with local and emerging brands, which sounds kind of quaint — even boring — but is actually a huge opportunity as envisioned by Arik Keller, whose last company was acquired by Facebook. Small to medium-size grocery stores, brands and distributors are part of a $650 billion market that comprises roughly 150,000 independently owned grocery and convenience stores — and most of them apparently buy goods and restock their shelves through phone calls, emails and texts. Keller, a former PayPal product director who later bought a grocery store, realized that if he can persuade these business owners to use a mobile app that helps them manage their procurement, he can make their lives easier, as well as more defensible against companies like Amazon and Walmart. As for Mable’s revenue, some grocers pay a monthly fee for the service; in other cases, Mable is getting a cut from brands like new specialty food companies that it’s helping find their way into new locations. So far, the company has raised $3.1 million in seed funding.

Phylagen. It’s a 4.5-year-old, San Francisco-based data analytics startup that says it’s creating a microbial map of the world for everything from food to textiles to counterfeit goods to determine from where they came. It’s basically looking for an item’s “DNA footprint,” meaning the unique combination of bacteria, fungi and pollen that adheres to a product wherever it’s made (and also to its packaging). It’s a big and growing opportunity that it’s targeting. According to Allied Market Research, the food traceability market alone is expected to become a $14 billion market by next year. Worth noting, Phylagen is a little further along in its fundraising “journey.” It closed on $14 million in Series A funding earlier this year, including from Cultivian Sandbox, Breakout Ventures and Working Capital.

Bunch is a 2.5-year-old, San Francisco-based app that, once downloaded, can connect friends via audio or video chat with friends who are playing mobile games. On its face, it might seem like a lightweight idea compared to, say, Tissium, a company that’s further along along the funding front and building a vascular sealant out of synthetic polymers (which is also pretty neat). But in a society where people are increasingly “apart together” — and study after study shows that social ties boost our longevity — the app has wide appeal from not just an entertainment but a wellness standpoint. The fact that this startup raised seed funding — $3.85 million in November — from top game makers, including Supercell, Tencent, Riot Games, Miniclip and Colopl Next, also means a lot. Specifically, it means (I think) that these companies would prefer to partner with Bunch than to ice it out. Jordan had covered this one, too.

Every year, the tech industry experiences moments that serve as guideposts for future entrepreneurs and investors looking to profit from the wisdom of the past.

In 2017, Susan Fowler published her heroic blog post criticizing Uber for its culture of sexual harassment, helping spark the #MeToo movement within the tech industry; 2018 was the year of the scooter, in which venture capitalists raced to pour buckets of cash into startups like Bird, Lime and Spin, hoping consumer adoption of micro-mobility would make the rushed deals worth it.

These last twelve months have been replete with scandals, new and interesting upstarts, fallen CEOs and big fundraises. Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes finally got a court date, SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son admitted defeat (see: “In the case of WeWork, I made a mistake”), venture capitalist Bill Gurley advocated for direct listings and denounced big banks’ underwriting skills, sperm storage startups battled for funding and Away’s dirty laundry was aired in an investigation conducted by The Verge.

The list of top moments and over-arching trends that defined this year is long. Below, I’ve noted what I think best represent the largest conversations that occurred in Silicon Valley this year, with a particular focus on venture capital, followed by honorable mentions. As always, you can email me (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) if you have thoughts, opposing opinions, strong feelings or relevant anecdotes.

1. SoftBank admitted failure: We’ll get to WeWork in a moment, but first, let’s talk about its multi-billion-dollar backer. SoftBank announced its Vision Fund in 2016, holding its first major close a year later. Ultimately, the Japanese telecom giant raised roughly $100 billion to invest in technology startups across the globe, upending the venture capital model entirely with its ability to write $500 million checks at the flip of a switch. It was an ambitious plan and many were skeptical; as it turns out, that model doesn’t work too well. Not only has WeWork struggled despite billions in funding from SoftBank, several other of the firm’s bets have wavered under pressure. Most recently, SoftBank confirmed it was selling its stake in Wag, the dog-walking business back to the company, nearly two years after funneling a whopping $300 million in the then-three-year-old startup. Wag failed to accumulate value and was struck by scandal, leading to SoftBank’s exit. Why it matters: ditching one of its more high profile bets out of the monstrous Vision Fund wasn’t even the first time this year SoftBank admitted defeat. Once an unstoppable giant, SoftBank has been forced to return to reality after years of prolific dealmaking. No longer a leader in VC or even a threat to other top venture capitalists, SoftBank’s deal activity has become a cautionary tale. Here’s more on SoftBank’s other uncertain bets.

2. WeWork pulled its IPO. The biggest story of 2019 was WeWork. Another SoftBank portfolio, in fact the former star of its portfolio, WeWork filed to go public in 2019 and gave everyone full access to its financials in its IPO prospectus. In August, the business disclosed revenue of about $1.5 billion in the six months ending June 30 on losses of $905 million. The IPO was poised to become the second-largest offering of the year behind only Uber, but what happened instead was much different: WeWork scrapped its IPO after ousting its founding CEO Adam Neumann, whose eccentric personality, expensive habits, alleged drug use, desire to become Israel’s prime minister and other aspirations led to his well-publicized ouster. There’s a lot more to this story, click here for more coverage of the 2019 WeWork saga. Why it matters: WeWork’s unforgiving IPO prospectus painted a picture of a high-spending company with no path to profit in sight. For years, Silicon Valley (or New York, where WeWork is headquartered) has allowed high-growth companies to raise larger and larger rounds of venture capital, understanding that eventually their revenues would outgrow their expenses and they would achieve profitability. WeWork, however, and its fellow ‘unicorn,’ Uber, made it all the way to IPO without carving out a strategy of reaching profitability. These IPOs ignited a wide-reaching debate in the tech industry: does Wall Street care about profitability? Should startups prioritize profits? Many said yes. Meanwhile, the threat of a downturn had startups across industries cutting back and putting cash aside for a rainy day. For the first time in years, and as The New York Times put it, Silicon Valley began trying out a new mantra: make a profit.

3. A whole bunch of CEOs stepped down: Adam Neumann wasn’t the only high profile CEO to move on from their company this year. In a move tied to The Verge’s investigation, Away co-founder and CEO Steph Korey stepped down from the luggage company, instead becoming its executive chairman. Lime’s CEO Toby Sun stepped down, shifting to another role within the company. On the public end of the ecosystem, McDonald’s, REI, Rite Aid and many others replaced their leaders. According to CNBC, nearly 150 CEOs left their post in November alone, setting up 2019 to break records for CEO departures with nearly 1,500 recorded already. Why it matters: All of these departures were caused by varying factors. I will focus on WeWork and Away, which took center stage of the startups and venture capital universe. The recent Away debacle reinforces the role of the tech media and its ability to present well-reported facts to the public and enact significant change to business as a result. Similarly, much of Adam Neumann’s ouster came as a result of strong reporting from outlets like The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and more. From facilitating a toxic, cutthroat culture to paying millions in company dollars for an unnecessary private jet, Away and WeWork’s situations proved standards for startup CEOs has shifted. Whether that shift is here to stay is still up for debate.

4. The IPO market was unforgiving to unicorns: WeWork never made it to the stock markets, but Uber, another scandal-ridden unicorn, did. The company (NYSE: UBER), previously valued at $72 billion, priced its stock at $45 apiece in May for a valuation of $82.4 billion. It began trading at $42 apiece, only to close even lower at $41.57, or down 7.6% from its IPO price. Not stellar, in fact, quite bad for one of the largest venture-backed companies of all time. Uber, however, wasn’t the only one to struggle with its IPO and first few months on the stock market. Other companies like Lyft and Peloton had disappointing results this year confirming the damage inflated valuations can cause startups-turned-public companies. Though a rocky IPO doesn’t mark the end of a company, it does tell you a lot about Wall Street’s appetite for Silicon Valley’s top companies. Why it matters: 2019’s tech IPOs illustrated a disconnect between the public markets and venture capitalists, whose cash determines the value of these high-flying companies. Wall Street has realized these stocks, which NYT journalist Erin Griffith recently described as “Publicly Listed Unicorns Miserably Performing,” are far less magical than previously assumed. As a result, many companies, particularly consumer tech businesses, may delay planned offerings, waiting until the markets stabilize and become hungry again for big-dreaming tech companies.

Now that the final technology IPOs of 2019 have touched down, it’s a good time to start looking back at what happened during the year. We’re hunting for trends as the clock winds down. Here’s one that’s obvious: Hardware startups are still struggling.

It’s cliché to note in startupland that hardware is hard. Everyone knows it. Making hardware is difficult by itself, but as all tech hardware requires software, hardware shops wind up needing wider domain expertise than pure-software startups. And that’s hard.

But even if a nuts-and-bolts tech company hits scale, it seems difficult to keep that momentum up.

This year we saw Peloton, a hybrid hardware and digital services company, go public and struggle. Despite a recent public market resurgence, the company is slipping back toward its IPO price. Today its equity is trading down about 6% to around $30 per share. The company’s IPO price of $29 is uncomfortably close to its current value.

2019’s IPO crop also included EHang, a late entry to the market (more here on its debut) that quickly began to lose altitude after it started to float. EHang traded up today, but the firm is still worth less than its IPO valuation, a reduced figure that was dinged during the China-based drone company’s march toward the public markets.

So, Peloton is about flat and EHang is down. That’s not a great mix of results for a year’s IPO class of hardware companies. Looking back in time, things don’t get much better.

NIO, a China-based electric car company (despite making this thing of beauty), has deleted about two-thirds of its value since its late-2018 U.S.-listed IPO. After going public at $6.25, shares of NIO are worth just $2.70 today.

Sonos also went public in the United States in 2018. It traded above its IPO price of $15 at first. Then it fell under $10 per share as 2018 came to a close. The smart speaker and stereo company spent 2019 recovering. It’s now worth its IPO price again, closing trading today worth about $14.80 per share.

If you go back to 2017, however, Roku has kicked ass. After pricing at $14 per share, the TV hardware and digital services firm is trading for $137 per share, a nearly 10x gain. But Roku was moving away from hardware at the time of its IPO, making it a somewhat poor example. Hardware revenues for Roku were just 31% of revenue in its most recent quarter, for example. That figure was 42% in the year-ago quarter. It will continue to fall.

We don’t need to go over what happened to Fitbit and GoPro, I don’t think.

Hardware can make a lot of money. Samsung and Apple make oceans of money from their hardware. Microsoft has managed to make Surface into a real business, with billions of dollars in yearly revenue. Amazon has a big hardware business with both consumer reading gadgets and consumer surveillance devices. Even Google is taking its new phone seriously enough to buy out a chunk of the NBA’s ad slots (I think it’s this one), according to my extensive in-market testing. Facebook is the laggard of the group.

But for smaller hardware companies going public, unless I’m missing a number of recent of IPOs — and I don’t think that I am — it’s a tough world out there.

F5 got an expensive holiday present today, snagging startup Shape Security for approximately $1 billion.

What the networking company gets with a shiny red ribbon is a security product that helps stop automated attacks like credential stuffing. In an article earlier this year, Shape CTO Shuman Ghosemajumder explained what the company does:

We’re an enterprise-focused company that protects the majority of large U.S. banks, the majority of the largest airlines, similar kinds of profiles with major retailers, hotel chains, government agencies and so on. We specifically protect them against automated fraud and abuse on their consumer-facing applications — their websites and their mobile apps.

F5 president and CEO François Locoh-Donou sees a way to protect his customers in a comprehensive way. “With Shape, we will deliver end-to-end application protection, which means revenue generating, brand-anchoring applications are protected from the point at which they are created through to the point where consumers interact with them—from code to customer,” Locoh-Donou said in a statement.

As for Shape, CEO Derek Smith said that it wasn’t a huge coincidence that F5 was the buyer, given his company was seeing F5 consistently in its customers. Now they can work together as a single platform.

Shape launched in 2011 and raised $183 million, according to Crunchbase data. Investors included Kleiner Perkins, Tomorrow Partners, Norwest Venture Partners, Baseline Ventures and C5 Capital. In its most recent round in September, the company raised $51 million on a valuation of $1 billion.

F5 has been in a spending mood this year. It also acquired NGINX in March for $670 million. NGINX is the commercial company behind the open-source web server of the same name. It’s worth noting that prior to that, F5 had not made an acquisition since 2014.

It was a big year in security M&A. Consider that in June, four security companies sold in one three-day period. That included Insight Partners buying Recorded Future for $780 million and FireEye buying Verodin for $250 million. Palo Alto Networks bought two companies in the period: Twistlock for $400 million and PureSec for between $60 and $70 million.

This deal is expected to close in mid-2020, and is of course, subject to standard regulatory approval. Upon closing Shape’s Smith will join the F5 management team and Shape employees will be folded into F5. The company will remain in its Santa Clara headquarters.

For many founders, building and selling a successful venture-backed company for cash is the ultimate goal. However, the reality is that some companies will instead receive an equity-funded acquisition proposal in which equity of another private venture-backed company, rather than cash, represents all or a significant portion of the purchase price.

Because all equity is not created equal, it is important for founders to understand how to negotiate for better equity in the context of such an acquisition proposal. This article explores what better equity looks like and some strategies founders can use to negotiate for that equity.

What is “better” equity?

To know what “better” equity is for the seller, it is necessary to understand what the “worst” and “best” stock is in the context an equity-funded acquisition by a private company buyer. The “worst” stock is plain common stock which does not enjoy any special rights and is subject to contractual restrictions which diminish its liquidity profile. Common stock sits at the bottom of the priority stack (after debt and preferred equity) in the event the company dissolves or is sold — thus, it is least valuable. Variations of transfer restrictions (e.g., a prohibition on private secondary sales) may further diminish the desirability of common stock by making it difficult or impossible for the holder to achieve liquidity outside of an M&A event or initial public offering (IPO).

In contrast, the “best” stock is (1) the acquirer’s most senior series of preferred stock, coupled with (2) additional contractual rights enhancing such stock’s liquidity profile. For our purposes here, we’ll call this “enhanced preferred stock.” All things being equal, founders and VCs should have a strong preference for enhanced preferred stock in an equity-funded acquisition for several reasons:

Usually, the most senior series of preferred stock will enjoy a liquidation preference ensuring that a certain amount of proceeds (commonly equal to invested capital) from a sale of the company flow to stockholders of that series before proceeds are distributed to junior preferred and common stockholders.Unique contractual rights not shared by common stockholders, like special voting rights with respect to major events and transactions, unique information rights, pro rata investment rights with respect to future financings, rights of first refusal and co-sale rights, increase the stock’s relative value.Beyond the standard set of rights that are usually enjoyed by all preferred stockholders, additional contractual rights of and reduced restrictions on enhanced preferred stock make it more likely that the holder of such equity will achieve liquidity of some or all of its holdings prior to an M&A event or IPO. Such additional rights may include one or more of the following: time or event-based redemption rights (i.e., the right to force the acquirer to redeem equity at a specified price in the future), other liquidity rights tied to future financings or commercial transactions (e.g., the right to sell stock to the investors in the next equity financing), covenants of the acquirer to permit and support private secondary sales and registration rights (i.e., the right to force the acquirer to register stock with the SEC, thereby allowing for unrestricted resale by the holder).

“Better” stock lies somewhere on the continuum between the common stock and enhanced preferred stock poles, with the type of stock and bundle of rights associated with such equity determining its precise location. Additional contractual rights and reduced restrictions may significantly improve the desirability of common stock and perhaps place the holder in a better position than it would have been as a preferred stockholder. For example, a seller able to negotiate the right to sell a certain amount of common stock to investors in the acquirer’s next preferred stock equity financing could be more favorably positioned than the holder of senior preferred stock without any enhanced preferred rights.

Negotiating for better stock. With a framework for understanding what better stock means, below are several strategies sellers can employ in M&A negotiations to obtain better stock than that initially offered by the buyer.

Avoiding dire situations and preserving leverage. Leverage matters in every negotiation and any strategy that ignores this reality is doomed to fail. To state the obvious, the first strategy to negotiate for better stock in an equity-funded acquisition is the first strategy in preparing for any M&A event: companies should do all they can to avoid being in a dire fire sale situation when a buyer comes knocking on their door. If the seller is a failing company seeking a sale as a last ditch effort to avoid shutting its doors, even the best strategies may be useless in negotiation since as soon as the buyer says “no”, the seller will likely fold its hand and agree to the deal offered.

Coral is a company that wants to “simplify the personal care space through smart automation,” and they’ve raised $4.3 million to get it done. Their first goal? An at-home, fully automated machine for painting your nails. Stick a finger in, press down, wait a few seconds and you’ve got a fully painted and dried nail. More than once in our conversations, the team referred to the idea as a “Keurig coffee machine, but for nails.”

It’s still early days for the company. While they’ve got a functional machine (pictured above), they’re quite clear about it being a prototype.

As such, they’re still staying pretty hush hush about the details, declining to say much about how it actually works. They did tell me that it paints one finger at a time, taking about 10 minutes to go from bare nails to all fingers painted and dried. To speed up drying time while ensuring a durable paint job, it’ll require Coral’s proprietary nail polish — so don’t expect to be able to pop open a bottle of nail polish and pour it in. Coral’s polish will come in pods (so the Keurig comparison is particularly fitting), which the user will be able to buy individually or get via subscription. Under the hood is a camera and some proprietary computer vision algorithms, allowing the machine to paint the nail accurately without requiring manual nail cleanup from the user after the fact.

Also still under wraps — or, more accurately, not determined yet — is the price. While Coral co-founder Ramya Venkateswaran tells me that she expects it to be a “premium device,” they haven’t nailed down an exact price just yet.

While we’ve seen all sorts of nail painting machines over the years (including ones that can do all kinds of wild art, like this one we saw at CES earlier this year), Coral says its system is the only one that works without requiring the user to first prime their nails with a base coat or clear coat it after. All you need here is a bare fingernail.

Coral’s team is currently made up of eight people — mostly mechanical, chemical and software engineers. Both co-founders, meanwhile, have backgrounds in hardware; Venkateswaran previously worked as a product strategy manager at Dolby, where she helped launch the Dolby Conference Phone. Her co-founder, Bradley Leong, raised around $800,000 on Kickstarter to ship Brydge (one of the earliest takes on a laptop-style iPad keyboard) back in 2012 before becoming a partner at the seed-stage venture fund Tandem Capital. It was during some industrial hardware research there, he tells me, when he found “the innovation that this machine is based off of.”

Vankateswaran tells me the team has raised $4.3 million to date from CrossLink Capital, Root Ventures, Tandem Capital and Y Combinator . The company is part of Y Combinator’s ongoing Winter 2020 class, so I’d expect to hear more about them as this batch’s demo day approaches in March of next year.

So what’s next? They’ll be working on turning the prototype into a consumer-ready device, and plan to spend the next few months running a small beta program (which you can sign up for here.)

Hello and welcome back to our regular morning look at private companies, public markets and the grey space in between.

Today, we’re weighing a standard bit of startup wisdom that recently reemerged against some surprising, contrasting evidence. Does too much money hurt a startup more than it helps, or is that standard view actually mistaken? We’ll start with the traditional view, which was re-upped this month by venture capitalist Fred Wilson, along with some supporting arguments proffered by a Boston-based venture firm.

Afterwards, we’ll dig into a grip of contrasting data that should provide plenty to chew on over the holidays. Ready?

Fit to burst

Union Square Ventures‘ Fred Wilson wrote earlier in December (citing an excellent Crunchbase News piece by occasional TechCrunch contributor Jason D. Rowley) that he was curious if startups that raise huge ($100 million and greater) early-stage rounds do better or worse than their cohorts that raised only smaller sums.

Underpinning his question is Wilson’s belief that “performance of VC backed companies is inversely correlated to how much money they raise.” This makes good sense. And if anyone has enough anecdotal evidence to support the view, it’s Wilson who has been a venture capitalist since the late 1980s.

The idea that too much money is bad for startups isn’t hard to understand: startups need to focus and run fast; too much money can lead to both bloated operations, diffuse product direction and useless dalliances in cruft.

Startups also die when they have too little money, of course. But the concept that there is a midpoint between insufficient funds and an ocean of capital that is optimal has lots of credibility amongst the venture class. (I believe this is my favorite phrasing of the concept, that “more startups die of indigestion than starvation.”)

A 2016-era TechCrunch article written by some of the folks from Founders Collective makes the point plainly:

By examining the technology IPOs of the past five years, we found that the enriched (well capitalized) companies do not meaningfully outperform their efficient (lightly capitalized) peers up to the IPO event and actually underperform after the IPO.

Raising a huge sum of money is a requirement to join the unicorn herd, but a close look at the best outcomes in the technology industry suggests that a well-stocked war chest doesn’t have correlation with success.

In the spirit of fairness, I’ve long agreed with the above views.

My views on the question of too much money ruining organizations came from a different field, but are worth sharing for context. My father once told me an analogous story about a small poetry magazine, a publication that operated on the proverbial shoestring and was always weeks away from shutting down. But it limped along, barely keeping the lights on as it produced brilliant work.

Then, someone died and left the magazine a pile of money in their will — but the sudden influx of capital wrecked the publication and it eventually shut down.

In many cases, raising too much money too early can hurt a team or cause it to lose track of its mission. But for tech startups, on average, is that really correct?

Maybe not

Ripple has raised a $200 million Series C funding round. Tetragon is leading the round, with SBI Holdings and Route 66 Ventures also participating. According to Fortune, the company is now valued at $10 billion.

“We are in a strong financial position to execute against our vision. As others in the blockchain space have slowed their growth or even shut down, we have accelerated our momentum and industry leadership throughout 2019,” Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said in the announcement.

The startup has been focused on improving cross-border payments and other money-transmitting activities using XRP, a cryptocurrency that has its own blockchain, the XRP Ledger. The total market capitalization of XRP tokens is currently the third-largest cryptocurrency market capitalization behind bitcoin and Ethereum.

It is currently worth $8.4 billion according to CoinMarketCap. While XRP is a decentralized cryptocurrency, Ripple controls a significant chunk of the total market cap. That reserve is valuable by itself. During the third quarter of 2019, Ripple sold $66.24 million in XRP tokens.

Ripple believes that cryptocurrencies (and XRP in particular) could be a great way to facilitate cross-border transactions. It has the potential to be both cheaper and faster than traditional foreign exchange solutions.

The company has been trying to convince financial institutions to switch to RippleNet as the back-end currency for international payments.

RippleNet now has 300 customers. In particular, Ripple took a 10% stake in MoneyGram to help them switch to RippleNet, at least in part.

Burst, the subscription dental care service, with the pretty, pretty toothbrushes, has now added a sleek dental floss product to its monthly kits.

The Los Angeles-based dental hygiene company, which has raised at least $20 million in financing from the growth capital investment firm Volition Capital, takes a different approach to reaching consumers than competitors like Quip.

Burst works hand-in-hand with a network of dental hygienists and dental professionals both as a channel to sell through and a sounding board for new product development. The company’s dental health professionals who are part of its sales channel now totals more than 20,000 people. Burst shares profits with these channel partners and has distributed about $3.5 million through the program.

Indeed, it was through the network of experts that the company arrived at the design for its dental floss.

“While there was a clear gap in the market for an affordable but effective electric toothbrush, our incredibly strong partnership with dental professionals has been key to the success of Burst,” said Brittany Stewart, COO of Burst. “From development and testing, to sharing our products with their network, Burst’s Ambassadors have been part of the team every step of the way. We’re proud to have fueled a grassroots movement of independent dental professionals who are just as passionate as we are about modernizing a tired industry.” 

The new product is a $12.99 mint-eucalyptus-flavored, charcoal-coated dental floss that expands between teeth. Burst’s floss comes in a case for replacement bobbins, which can be delivered to a customer’s door for $6.99 per month.

“When we first met the founders of Burst, we immediately recognized they were tapping into something special in an industry that was ripe for disruption,” stated Larry Cheng, managing partner and co-founder of Volition Capital. “We were inspired by their vision and wanted to support the growth trajectory they were already on, capitalizing on their key strengths, such as product development and the Ambassador network, while identifying further opportunities.”