Mollyycolllinss Categories For later read

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
Recently I have read some great 🧵s on raising a seed round.

Instead of gathering dusts in my bookmarks I have compiled them into one guide:

With: @gaganbiyani @RomeenSheth @josephflaherty @yoheinakajima @daytonmills @micahjay1 @paigefinnn @dunkhippo33 @amanda_robs @pinverrr

1/10. Adjusting your mental mode to the process of


2/10. Fundamentals for building the slide


3/10. How to craft the most important slide in the


4/10. One way of raising a seed round:
This is so true! I imagine everyone accumulates a story that serves to make this point, but I'm afraid I can't resist sharing mine... 1/


Once, long ago, my manager came to me on a Friday afternoon: "Are you going to be here on Monday?" 2/

Now, this is the 1990s: to work from home, you needed a modem (!!) -- and at the time, I owned no computer so even that wasn't happening. So I was emphatically going to be there on Monday, if for no other reason that I had nowhere else to work. 3/

"Yes, of course I'm going to be here on Monday."
"Okay, we need to talk Monday."
"Is there something wrong? Can we talk now?"
"Let's talk Monday." 4/

My early-twentysomething self was (obviously?) very anxious, so I immediately went to the office of the senior engineer in the group (and my mentor), Jeff Bonwick to see if he knew of anything that I might have screwed up... 5/
🧵 The conversation surrounding this is confused in ways that really backfire. For example, you often hear that the Founders more or less "wanted gridlock to be the norm," for it to be "hard to get anything done," to guard against radical change.


Naturally, this tends to lessen the public's respect for the whole system. It doesn't sound very attractive, or at least sounds like a particularly inefficient way of guarding against radical change. "They wanted to force compromise," is better, but also backfires.

It confuses the public into being mad that everyone "can't just get a long and compromise," like it's a matter of personal attitudes and conflict is a sign something is wrong. A more invigorating and accurate framing:


We've basically inverted this framing into something very demoralizing. "Congress isn't supposed to do anything," rather than "Congress is gunning for a showdown." And we're so confused that one of the impeachment charges against Trump was "Obstruction of Congress."


The point is that the branches were supposed to be actively tactical, and were given a set of tools to use against each other. Not "do nothing."
A vitally important thread. Much isnt new, but is so in the air we breathe we forget how RECENT it is & therefore how unaccustomed we r to coping w/it. At the risk of hijacking her great observatns, theyre pivotal to points others have made re: Institutional Evangelicalism...1/12


1. The increased burden of sifting fact from fiction is one that only the economically privileged have the bandwidth to keep up with day-to-day, especially w/the SPEED of news generation we've seen in the last 6-10 years. This contributes to polarization & significantly... 2/12

... disadvantages blue collar America (on the left and the right) in an info economy, and is a massive catalyst for populist sentiments that make it exponentially harder for already-weak institutions to lead or swim against the tide (see Yuval Levin's "A Time to Build"). 3/12

2. I cannot agree more effusively with @sometimesalight's point re: social media & narrative. Social media platforms function as counterfeit institutions (social spaces that form identity via narrative, connection via shared purpose, & virtue via participation). 4/12

Prior to SocMed's ubiquity(approx. 2010), sifting/weighing primarily happened in traditional institutions (esp. churches) where perspectives tempered by wisdom, virtue, & relationship both evaluated & prioritized info. They served as both refuge & filter, solvent & catalyst. 5/12