This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
One of the questions I heard most often from commenters was: “if Techstars is an example of a failed accelerator, what does a good one look like?” This post is an effort to unpack what’s required of a startupaccelerator to truly serve the needs of high-performing founders. This has not been our experience.
. + This post unpacks offers an insiders’ view of some of the key strategic decisions that led to Techstars’ decline. ————– Techstars is – or was – one of the world’s best startupaccelerator programs.
I asked them to treat me like a funder. By the way, we also used the grant opportunity to be certain that our contracted team of program designers and managers were inclusive and reflective of the communities in which we were working. They described social improvement and positive outcomes – but nothing that was tangible.
They will also be offered the opportunity to join a customized 6-month Google Developers Launchpad Accelerator program, including guidance from our nonprofit partner, DataKind, to jumpstart their work. Google for StartupsAccelerator. Bloomberg New Economy Forum Solutions. Notley Ventures. Three dot dash.
All VCs, including us, regularly see investment opportunities which don’t fit our mandate. Certain late-stage VCs have invested in some of my past funds, partly to motivate us to refer future investment opportunities to them. Open Water Accelerator. Open Water is a new type of startupaccelerator. Calm Company. “We’re
They will also be offered the opportunity to join a customized 6-month Google Developers Launchpad Accelerator program, including guidance from our nonprofit partner, DataKind, to jumpstart their work. Google for StartupsAccelerator. no-equity stipend + corporate pilot opportunities with our founders.
Jonathan Bragdon , CEO, describes Capacity as “a team of founders-turned-funders making non-dilutive, founder-aligned investments of $50-$300k in post-startup, post-revenue businesses planning to 2X revenues in 12-24 months. The firm uses whichever structure best fits a given investment opportunity, including Flexible VC.
Jonathan Bragdon , CEO, describes Capacity as “a team of founders-turned-funders making non-dilutive, founder-aligned investments of $50-$300k in post-startup, post-revenue businesses planning to 2X revenues in 12-24 months. The firm uses whichever structure best fits a given investment opportunity. . 20% initial ownership.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 24,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content