General > General Technical Chat
Solar Freaking bike parking
RJSV:
'Word Salad', yes likely, sorry. A little more clear would be, (and correcting that $2 trillion, to $100 trillion), saying $100 trillion to secure a green supply, heavy on wind and solar.
Then, the analyst guy said there wasn't much trade-off study, of 'damage' done vs. pre-mitagated reduction of green house gasses.
Sorry, though, as there are so many land-mines in those terms, that can be twisted beyond common sense, as make my (summary) of someone else's summary gets, well, muddled.
But the gist of it was, that he expressed that infrastructure upgrades cost was only a portion of any sensible calculation.
Plus, I suppose he did also leave out the question of ultimate supply quantity.
nctnico:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 06, 2024, 08:16:45 pm ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2024, 07:08:30 pm ---You won't convince me all the investors are (run by) complete idiots.
--- End quote ---
I'm not trying to. If an investor funded this particular project hoping it would break even or make a profit, they certainly are a complete idiot.
I don't understand how you'd jump from that to "all investors are (run by) complete idiots".
But I was not even suggesting that.
--- End quote ---
IMHO you are actually suggesting that. ;) Sorry, but what you wrote looks like unfounded speculation to me. Is your position based on hands-on experience with finding funding for commercial startups? As I wrote before I have a front row seat (figuratively and literally speaking) at startups seeking funding and my experience is that investors are not easely persuaded into handing out money. There is an extensive process where investors have several decission making layers internally and seek third party council from various experts to make sure all the angles (including technical and financial) are covered. It takes way more than a flashy presentation and an spreadsheet with some random numbers (that only works in movies / TV series). Investors want to see tangible evidence an idea is worth money. That is the bottom line. And while it is true that investing in startups is a big risk, investors are doing their upmost best not to invest in a dud as it is way easier to lose money than to gain money. In the end they need to make a return on investment in order not to go out of business themselves.
BrianHG:
--- Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2024, 07:43:54 pm ---Crowd funding is entirely different compared to private funding. For private funding you need a very solid business plan with lots of paperwork. You can't even begin to compare.
--- End quote ---
Depending on who, but yes, professionals who invest for a living expect a certain format to work with. This doe not mean the business plan needs to be solid, but you must have some certain solid IP they can hold hostage/own if shit hits the fan and it's value needs to be proven by third party evaluation at the very least.
Yes, there are those type of VC fund raising outfits who also specialize of raising money for purely BS projects. They let the 'entrepreneurs/founders' go down in flames as they sit cushioned since they already collected their profitable fee as they raised the funds from a group of un-educated in the field investors.
Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: nctnico on March 27, 2024, 04:59:21 pm ---Is your position based on hands-on experience with finding funding for commercial startups?
--- End quote ---
First of all, I do not claim all investors are idiots. If you think I said otherwise, you need to reread my posts. I pointed out that many investors fund projects they know full well will fail because of the positive publicity.
But anyway, yes, I do have practical experience in finding funding for commercial startups, angel investors, and so on. The IT company I ran for a few years originally started in a business incubator. I got the "nine out of ten will fail, but the one will recoup the investment in all ten" from an angel investor, in fact. Mostly, I talked with Finnish investors and other entrepreneurs (mentors). Granted, that was just before the turn of the century, but I don't think people have changed much since then.
I do also know people who work for startups and similar, and have discussed with them the kind of projects they've managed to get external funding for, but those I consider only tentatively reliable (second-hand info).
--- Quote from: nctnico on March 27, 2024, 04:59:21 pm ---my experience is that investors are not easely persuaded into handing out money.
--- End quote ---
Are you sure you're doing it right, then?
The triple-pronged attack of showing the projected figures if the product/service succeeds, the positive publicity even if the product/service fails, and the opportunities to meet other "notable" people in investor events, is extremely attractive to many investors.
If you think the product/service should stand on its own, you're limiting yourself to a small fraction of all investors only interested in profit and having sufficient know-how to estimate for themselves the likelihood of the product/service succeeding.
--- Quote from: nctnico on March 27, 2024, 04:59:21 pm ---In the end they need to make a return on investment in order not to go out of business themselves.
--- End quote ---
Yes, but you confuse "profit on their investments" with "profit on every investment". The two are completely different, and only the first makes sense long-term, and is why presentation, pretty/handsome PR and sales people, and a people-schmoozer money-hungry CEO makes success much more likely: appearance rules.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version