A few thoughts on funding rounds
I am more behind on email than usual, which I didn’t know was possible. But with my new newsletter role at TechCrunch time is limited, and I am having to triage more than I once had to.
That in mind, I am sharpening my filters for deciding which funding rounds to cover.
First, some context:
The pace at which startups are raising money is accelerating, and there is more money in venture capital than ever. This means that there are more rounds hunting for coverage than in previous years/cycles.
The number of reporters covering venture capital rounds — especially early-stage deals — is not keeping anything close to pace, and may in fact be shrinking.
I am struggling a bit with whom to cover. I don’t always make the best choices, at times missing rounds that I should have prioritized, for example.
To that end, I’m instituting some rules for myself to ensure that I am winnowing the inbound flow of deals to the most interesting, and to the rounds that will best help me explain what is going on in the startup market for TechCrunch readers.
Here’s what I am looking for, at a minimum:
Round Information: Deal size, deal close date, new pre+post-money valuations (or cap in the case of a SAFE, etc), and full details on the makeup of the investment (cash, debt, a blend).
Startup Information: Pertinent, useful growth metrics with a sharp bias towards hard numbers, details concerning economics (gross margin, CAC trends, etc), and burn timeline.
Some folks are going to complain that private companies don’t have to share that information, as they are not yet public firms. Correct! But there are a zillion venture rounds every week, and I can only get to three. I want to use those rounds to help explain the world. And data helps with that. — Alex