My skepticism about founder-first programs was reinforced by an experience this week (a đź§µ):

I was introduced to two founders who met in <redacted>, where they came up with an idea and built a prototype. The prototype was early but promising enough to fundraise.

Their goal: $2M
I thought what they were doing was potentially interesting (both in terms of market and approach), but they were so early that they struggled to put their vision into words (much less reflect it in a prototype).

My feedback: why not raise a smaller round first to gain clarity?
They shared that they had repeatedly heard this same feedback and, in fact, already had ~$300K in commits towards a smaller round. I asked why they weren't closing that and building out their MVP, to which they responded "we want to try for $2M" (fair).

I asked to be updated.
Today, I received an email stating that, despite getting a large percentage of commits, the founders decided to shut down the company because "while it would have allowed us to get to an MVP, it wouldn't have been enough to pivot."
There's a lot to unpack in this decision (and I've been doing so with several other investors), but I keep coming back to this question:

Can founders who have only known each other for a matter of weeks/months before coming up with an idea ever achieve founder-market fit?
In other words, if you barely know each other, how can you possibly come up with an idea so compelling that you're each willing to take the same degree of risk to make it happen?

Is "obsession" possible for founding teams created through these programs? https://www.nfx.com/post/4-signs-founder-market-fit/
You can follow @ckneumann.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.