Asshole VC Terms Founders Should Beware Of In Malaysia

Receiving funding from investors is like getting married. If you take on the wrong investors with shitty terms, it’s like being stuck in an unhappy marriage, and it could kill your start-up before it even got started.

Over the 10 years that I have been in the Malaysian start-up scene, many founders have come to me for advice or confided in me privately about the shitty terms they were bound to that are killing their start-up or screwing them up personally.

Read Also:

Why Start-Ups Today Need To Raise More & More Money Just To Get Started?

I have also asked many fellow founders for advice to see what is considered normal and fair in our ecosystem and compared it with how it should really be done like the top VCs and start-ups do in Silicon Valley to get a clearer picture of what’s really happening.

Even Lawyers Might Not Know Best — Start-Up Law Here Is Very Under-Developed

Even when it comes to lawyers, not all lawyers are well-versed with what is fair for tech start-ups. I would say most aren’t. You can’t apply the same terms and mindset that you used for conventional businesses to tech start-ups.

They’re very different.

There are too many investor horror stories that no one dares to talk about publicly.

The Wrong Investors Will Kill You

This is not a joke. The wrong investors will really kill your start-up.

Even in developed ecosystems like Silicon Valley, taking on investment with severely unfavourable terms will prevent future good investors from investing in you.

Start-Ups Are Hard — Founders Need Enough Skin In The Game

The reason is simple, the best VCs know that trying to start a disruptive start-up is extremely hard, and the founders need to have enough stake in it through multiple rounds of dilution to not give up easily or just quit altogether.

The wrong investors can also force you to make the wrong decisions that would kill your company like what happened to Friendster and Hi5.

Smart Founders Should Not Have Taken Bad Deals

If you have shitty terms with an existing investor, this also does not reflect well on you as a founder to future investors because the assumption is that only dumb founders would ever agree to such terms in the first place, and no future investor would dare to come into a start-up that has shitty terms with an existing investor that could hold the company ransom and seriously screw things up for everyone.

Most Don’t Live Long Enough To Tell The Story

Most start-ups that get caught with shitty terms don’t survive long enough to tell the story. Most just fade away or got screwed but can’t do anything about it.

Read Also:

My 10 Year Start-Up Journey — Lessons & Honest Reflections

No Founder Dares To Speak Out For Fear Of Getting Blacklisted

Others are too embarrassed to talk about it or do not dare to consult anyone for help or speak out for fear of getting blacklisted by VCs and the start-up community.

It Is Fair That Some VCs Think That Way — I Understand

VCs generally don’t like it when founders speak out about stuff like these because they can be seen as whiny and troublemakers that might falsely accuse them of stuff like these in the future if things go wrong. They also believe that stuff like these should be kept private and resolved privately or through the legal system.

That’s a fair way to think, but unfortunately legal recourse is not available for everybody, you can’t really resort to that if you are poor or don’t have enough resources to fight the legal battle. Furthermore, if the start-up is already dead or the value you stand to gain if you win is not more than a couple of million, there really isn’t much sense to spending the huge amounts of money required to fight the case.

It is a business mistake and there is really no point complaining about it. You just got to suck it up and move on.

That’s Why I Am Not Naming Any Names — It’s A Guide For Future Founders

That’s why I am not naming any names here. The point of me sharing all these real life stories from various founders and VCs — that I shall never name — is not to blame or shame anyone, but to give future founders a better understanding of what mistakes you might make that could screw your start-up or you the instant you sign on the dotted line.

This would prevent a lot of good founders and good start-ups from failing and going through hell unnecessarily. I believe that this information should be available, and founders should talk more among themselves to find out which VCs are good and which ones aren’t, because VCs do that too.

I have never personally accepted any of these bad deals because I know what they mean, how they would kill my start-up and what’s fair for what I am building. Coming from a legal background, having many lawyer and fellow founder friends and learning from the best people in Silicon Valley definitely helped, but I’ve gotten many shitty deals offered to me and seen many disastrous effects from fellow founders who went through hell or came to me for advice when they receive such term sheets.

Spark Positive Change Among VCs Who Might Unknowingly Be Making These Mistakes Due To Inexperience Being A Proper VC

I am sharing these stories so that if you are a founder and ever see these asshole terms, you know better than to sign on the dotted line, and also hopefully spark positive change among some VCs who might mistake having overly harsh terms as a good thing based on their experience in conventional businesses, because those terms could unknowingly kill their investment before they even know it.

Asshole Terms Can Hold You Ransom

There was this start-up that went through an accelerator program, and took a small pre-seed investment (less than RM50k) from them. They had a solid team and a viable business, that’s why some angel investors were interested to invest.

Unfortunately, the accelerator had unfair veto powers to block the addition of any new shareholders, and the accelerator used that power to force the new investor to buy out their shares at more than double what they put in, if they don’t do that they won’t let the new investor invest and rather let the start-up die.

Read Also:

Are ASEAN VCs Stuck With Un-EXITable Dividend Paying Start-Ups?

They essentially held that start-up ransom in order to exit with a 5x profit. This is not normal, it is normal for early investors to exit early to a later stage investor, but that’s at least after the start-up has somewhat stabilised and the round size is big enough during Series B or Series C onwards, not the immediate next round for that insignificant 10–30k they put in, and you should not be able to force it.

You can see that that’s the accelerator’s business model, to flip the start-up for a quick profit and hold the start-up and the new investor ransom if they refuse to buy them out, which is very wrong.

Shitty Terms Will Prevent You From Raising Your Next Round

If you raise money on shitty terms, you can jeopardise your chances of ever raising another round from a good future investor. In that sense, your start-up would already be dead before it even started.

If you accept unfair terms from your investor in your current round, future investors would steer clear when they perform their due diligence simply because they don’t want to be entangled in a legal mess or being held ransom by your earlier investor.

Read Also:

Are Early Stage ASEAN VCs Valuing Start-Ups Wrongly?

If you give out too much equity or mess up your cap sheet by giving out equity too freely without reasonable justification — or not knowing what is a fair amount for their contribution — future investors will also be reluctant to invest because they feel that you might not have enough skin in the game to see your vision through anymore or your messed up cap table would prevent you from raising future rounds.

Accepting shitty terms also does not reflect well on your intellect, because investors want to invest in smart founders, and smart founders should never accept shitty terms that might jeopardise their start-ups.

You Can Be Personally Screwed — It Might Bankrupt You

A founder once shared an unfair term sheet he received with me that could get him personally screwed if he accepted it. The worst clause found in that term sheet was one that would make him personally liable for the entire investment amount should the start-up shut down or for any other reason is unable to repay the investors the full investment amount after a certain date.

What was even more outraging was that the full “investment amount” was not even a real investment amount that the “investor” put in with cold hard cash, it included “in-kind” benefits that the investor forced upon the start-up like co-working space and “training” that the investors put a value upwards of a couple of hundred of thousands to — there’s no way in hell that sort of “training” is worth that much.

That’s basically a very bad loan that would bankrupt you.

Know What Is Fair & What Is Not

In reality, the terms of an investment would depend on a lot of factors, including the nature of the business, the potential of the business, how much leverage do you have and how desperate you are for the money.

Are you desperate enough for the money to take on shitty terms?

If your start-up does not need to raise funds from the best investors, then sometimes it might be okay to reluctantly accept some slightly unfair terms that are not ideal but won’t kill you and you can survive with.

Read Also:

Worst Advice I’ve Ever Received As A Tech Entrepreneur

But to be able to do that, you would at least need to know what terms are fair, what terms are not, what can be tolerated, and what terms would definitely kill you.

Some Are More Acceptable Than Others

Among all the shitty terms that you would encounter, some are more acceptable than others. Some are not ideal, but you might still be able to take the hit and live with that if you are really desperate for the money.

Others, on the other hand, would kill you. You should not accept those terms under any circumstances, unless you’re on a suicide mission or plan to run away with the money.

Example Of Asshole Terms From Real Life Stories

Over the years, I’ve seen quite a number of shitty term sheets from fellow founders and heard an equal number of horror stories from the founders who went through that themselves.

I am not going to name names and am going to be intentionally vague on certain parts to protect the identify of the parties involved because I do not want to point any fingers at anybody. I am sharing these stories because I believe that the ecosystem and future founders and VCs have a right to know what’s fair and what’s not so we can build a better ecosystem where more start-ups can be successful together.

I will be describing some examples and explaining why such terms are unfair or why they could kill your start-up or screw you up personally.

Counting “Training” & “Office Space” As A Significant Part Of Investment Value

An accelerator program once offered a start-up a term sheet for an investment of around RM 600k for more or less 12–15%, which seems like quite a good valuation for an early stage Malaysian e-commerce start-up given the low valuations in Malaysia.

That’s until you find out that up to RM400k of the RM600k would be in the form of office space and “training provided”. That would mean that the start-up is essentially raising RM200k for 12–15%, which is a whole lot less.

Now, it’s actually normal for accelerator programs to charge a fee for their programs, 500 Startups US does that too, they invest 150k USD for 6% and charge a fee of 37.5k USD, but they usually take a much lower percentage and actually invest the cash that the start-up would use to pay the accelerator so the accelerator could pay their mentors and cover their costs.

The value and costs of running the accelerator is transparent, rather and randomly assigning a value to services that costs you nothing so you can get a bigger stake.

Read Also:

What’s Stopping ASEAN From Having A 100 Billion USD Tech Company?

Furthermore, the fees for joining an accelerator program should only be a small portion of the investment made, and not make up a whopping 2/3 of the entire “investment”.

What start-ups really need is cash, not benefits in kind.

Ideally, all deals should be a straight up cash for equity deal, so the start-up can have the flexibility of how they would like to allocate their resources, by spending less on rent and more on marketing or engineering rather than having to allocate a huge portion of their limited resources that their investor forced down their throat.

Start-ups should have the freedom to allocate their resources the way they see fit.

It is unfair for an investor to significantly inflate the value of their investment for a larger stake via non-cash contributions, because you are essentially raising money at a much lower valuation. If you’re really desperate for money, you might have no choice but to take the deal, but you need to know that you’re actually raising at a much lower valuation.

Mandatory ESOP That Does Not Dilute Them

There has also been term sheets that include a mandatory Employee Stock Option Program (ESOP) clause that DOES NOT dilute the investors.

While it is normal to allocate 10% to 20% of shares for early employees during each major round of funding, it is not fair that the investors can’t be diluted. All additional shares issued for employee stock options should dilute all existing shareholders equally.

Otherwise, that would essentially mean that employees’ stock comes solely from the founders, and the founders would be significantly diluted. Since the round includes a mandatory allocation for ESOP, that means the founders are essentially raising the amount of money for the percentage agreed PLUS the percentage of ESOP that needs to be allocated and not dilute the new investors.

If you are only giving out 10% of your shares this round, a 10% ESOP that does not dilute the investors would mean that you are basically giving away 20% for the investment, essentially having the valuation cut in half.

Inflated “Legal & Admin Fees” To Be Paid To Their Associated Firms

In addition to attributing a huge portion of the “investment value” to benefits in kind, that same accelerator also needed the start-up to pay up to RM50k for legal and admin services rendered by their partner firms.

Since RM400k of the RM600k “investment value” is in the form of office space and training, that means an additional RM50k needs to be taken out of the RM200k in cash to pay the accelerator’s partner firms, essentially leaving the start-up with around RM150k in usable cash.

Read Also:

Why I Got So Frustrated At ASEAN’s Start-Up Ecosystem After Coming Back From China

RM50k is a very steep price for a simple shareholders agreement for a pre-seed start-up, it’s absurd, this essentially means that the start-up is raising only RM150k in cash for 13–15% of stock. That accelerator also mandated an ESOP program that does not dilute themselves, which essentially cuts the valuation in half again.

Too Many Board Seats

Board seats are valuable, because they essentially give you control of the start-up’s key decisions. Most pre-seed and early stage investors would not get a seat on your start-up’s board. Your first non-founder board member will probably be from the lead investor from your first proper VC led round.

Even so, they would usually only take up 1 board seat, the founders should maintain control of the board until at least your start-up enters the later stages. The purpose of having an investor on your board is so they can provide guidance, an objective and experienced opinion, make key introductions when needed and keeping them up to date on the start-up’s progress. The founders should always have the power the make key decisions, especially during the early stages of a start-up where many risky and defining decisions needs to be made in order to make sure the start-up stays true to its mission.

So, if an early stage investor or accelerator requests for a majority or significant number of board seats in an early round of funding, something is wrong.

Excessive Investor Reporting

If you’re doing your job right, a start-up founder would be so busy building the product, team or business that you won’t even have time to sleep.

A start-up founder’s time should not be wasted on excessive paperwork like preparing investor reports. Every moment counts, especially during the early stages of a start-up.

It’s fair to prepare a proper progress report for our investors every year, or if the founders are more inexperienced, young and need more guidance, perhaps bi-annually or at most once every quarter. Anything more frequent than that is excessive and a waste of time.

Read Also:

Are ASEAN VCs Over-Correcting Their Investment Strategy?

Unfortunately, I’ve seen some investors demanding monthly or weekly progress reports in their term sheets. That’s just crazy. If that happens to you, you need to ask your investors whether they’d rather see progress on paper or actual progress that matters.

Investors can’t treat start-up founders like primary school kids, if they do so, they are probably the wrong investors for you. If you’re serious about building your start-up, you shouldn’t agree to terms like these, or convince your investors why such terms are dumb.

Unfair Anti-Dilution Rights

Fast growing tech start-ups need to raise multiple rounds of funding in order to grow and build out their businesses. Naturally, that means founders and other shareholders would need to go through multiple rounds of dilution throughout the lifetime of the start-up.

It is only fair that everyone gets diluted equally during each round of funding. No one should have any anti-dilution rights unless the start-up needs to raise a down round — a round at a lower valuation.

Anti-dilution rights are normal in conventional businesses, but not so for fast growing tech start-ups who need to raise multiple rounds of capital at different valuations. If the start-up needs to raise a down down, it’s still fair because a start-up would only need to raise a down round if the start-up isn’t doing well, which comes with its consequences.

Otherwise, giving an investor anti-dilution rights in your start-up is unfair because you are essentially giving them a lot more shares in the company and raising your round at a much lower valuation depending on how well your start-up eventually does in the end.

It is understood that the earlier you invest in a fast growing start-up the more your stake will be diluted with each round the start-up raises at a higher valuation, but that also means you have the most to gain because you got in early for your stake at a much lower price. Just a 1% stake can amount to billions or tens of millions in the end if your start-up does well, so don’t agree to anti-dilution rights, it is not common practice and not a fair term when it comes to tech start-ups.

Follow On Rights At A Discount

While anti-dilution rights are unfair, follow on rights are, unless they are at a discount.

Y-Combinator has follow on rights on their start-ups as well, that means they have the right to join a future round to maintain their stake (in terms of percentage) by investing more money at the valuation of that future round, which would be much higher.

Once you’ve downloaded the app and signed up, you can start to meet other amazing single people in Kuala Lumpur or Singapore who share the same values and interests as you by scanning the QR codes below.

*Search for Wowwwz on the App Store or Play Store to download

SCAN with Wowwwz to meet amazing single people in Kuala Lumpur!

SCAN with Wowwwz to meet amazing single people in Singapore!

That’s the right way to maintain your stake as a percentage in a fast growing tech start-up that is doing well as an investor, by investing more in their later rounds at higher valuations together with the new later stage investors, since you’ve already benefited so much from the appreciation in stock price from your earlier investment.

I’ve seen accelerators and VCs include a sneaky discount along with their follow on rights, some as high as 30%. That’s unfair because the earlier investor would have already benefited from the increase in valuation of their previous stake, being able to follow-on at a discount to the next round’s much higher valuation is not fair for the later investors and would force the start-up to give out a lot more equity to raise the cash needed to further grow the start-up.

The start-up would have to give out more equity to raise cash if existing investors can invest at a discount. New investors would also not think it is fair and might not invest in the start-up altogether because of this.

Allowing follow-on rights with a discount might prevent you from raising any further funding, it is an unfair term that might jeopardise your chances of raising further rounds.

Beware Of A Loan That Is Not A Convertible Debt

It’s almost impossible to properly value an early stage start-up that is still iterating on their product and hasn’t really figured out its business model yet. Because of that, the standard way early stage investors in Silicon Valley invest in tech start-ups is through a convertible debt or a SAFE.

A convertible debt is essentially a loan that can be converted into shares at a certain price in the future, usually with a maximum price or at a discount from the start-ups first properly valued round — usually Series A.

Read Also:

Did Softbank Get It Wrong With Uber And WeWork?

Loans are a common way shareholders inject capital into a company when it comes to conventional businesses, in under-developed start-up ecosystems like Malaysia where many start-up instruments are not recognised or not enforceable, many Malaysian start-ups have to improvise and use existing tools recognised by Malaysian company law to achieve the same effect of a convertible debt or a SAFE, so early stage investors do invest part of the full investment amount into start-ups via a loan.

The important part is to make sure that the loan achieves the same effect as a convertible debt or if equity is already issued, would be written off once the start-up raises its next round at a higher valuation.

This is important because if the loan remains a loan, that means the start-up would have to eventually pay back the investment made via a loan, which makes the investment a loan and not an investment.

Your new investors won’t be happy because the earlier investor would still get back their money plus interest besides the shares that they have gotten from their earlier “investment”, worse still if you are using your new investor’s money to pay off a loan from your previous investors.

So, make sure your investment is not made via a loan that’s not a convertible debt or can’t be written off.

Excessive Interest Rates & Repayment Terms

It’s normal for VCs to attach interest rates to their investments, usually when calculating their liquidation preference or when the investment is made via a convertible debt.

However, the interest rate should not be excessive. A number of Malaysian VCs and accelerators tend to attach an overly high interest rate to their investments with ridiculous payment terms. By right, an investment should not have any repayment terms, otherwise it’s more of a loan than an investment.

Unfortunately, due to the wrong way many VC funds in Malaysia are structured and the majority of VCs being formerly from the banking and private equity sector, many VC investments look more like loans than VC investments.

There are also many firms who call themselves VCs but are actually more like loan sharks than VCs, I’ve met a good number of them in Malaysia. These are not really VCs, not even the wrongly structured ones that function like private equity, at least those are legit.

If your term sheet includes excessive interests rates and ridiculous repayment terms, I would advice against taking money from them, many fellow founders have rightly made the decision to decline investment offers from such firms, including later stage firms. These start-ups would rather take out a proper loan from a bank if a VC has such terms.

Such firms usually only have their eyes on the money and have no regard for the long term vision and well-being of the start-up. All they want to do is to make a return on their investment and exit as soon as possible. They also might not have the holding power necessary to see an innovative start-up through to where they need to get and would force you to make bad short term focused decisions that would kill your start-up or completely derail you from what you really want to build.

Unfair Veto Powers — For Example Power To Accept New Investors

In most shareholder agreements, there would be a section regarding veto powers or stuff that would require the consent of all shareholders before the company can proceed with.

This section is usually used to protect against cases where the founders or directors take on an excessive amount of debt or liability or make a huge investment exceeding a certain amount that could destroy the company or change the financial soundness of a start-up significantly.

Veto power for taking on loans or liabilities more than a certain significant amount or spending more than a certain big amount in a single cheque is fair.

However, many Malaysian investors like to sneak things like the power to accept any new shareholders into this section. This is dangerous because such veto powers can be used to hold a start-up or a new investor ransom like the case when an accelerator program demanded a 3–5x exit from new investors on the next immediate round when the start-up was still technically in the pre-seed stage and needed all the cash it can to get started.

The accelerator was trying to “flip” the start-up for a quick profit.

Read Also:

7 Famous People & Startups That Started Or Started As Dating Apps

Fortunately for that start-up, their new investors who were interested to invest were experienced and knew how to deal with that rogue accelerator. They saw through the accelerator’s schemes and bought them out with what they put in but refused to pay a single cent more and are prepared to get the founders started on a separate entity and fight whatever legal harassment they might come up with.

Otherwise, that start-up would have just died because of that accelerator holding them ransom and scared off any future serious investor.

That start-up was also fortunate that the amount needed to buy out the bad investors out was small, otherwise you have to factor in the cost of buying out a bad investor into the round you are raising which means you will have to give out significantly more equity for much less money because a big part of that round goes to buying out bad investors rather than growing and building the start-up.

Personal Liability On Founders For Investment Amount

I told the founder that came to me with a term sheet with this clause that all other shitty terms in that term sheet was still something you could probably survive with if you were really really desperate for money and don’t mind taking a very low valuation and risk not being able to raise any further funding, but this one term is the one that would kill you and screw you up personally.

This term could bankrupt you.

In addition to having unfair veto powers and severely inflating the investment value by hundreds of thousands via “benefits in kind” rather than cash, that accelerator also made the founders liable for the full amount in cash plus severely inflated “benefits in kind” should the start-up close down or is unable to repay them after a set period of time.

Read Also:

Here’s Why You Should Invest In Me & Wowwwz

Given the fact that more 90% of start-ups fail, that would mean you would most probably go bankrupt if you don’t have the cash to repay the RM600,000 or so — in reality its just RM150,000 that you received — to that accelerator.

This is the kind of term that would kill you, and makes you feel like throwing the term sheet back at them and just walking away.

Unfortunately, some good and reputable firms or organisations, some of whom are started by friends I respect, hold dearly and have done a lot for our ecosystem happen to have similar terms too, due to the wrong way they are structured and a lack of understanding from powerful people that are entangled in bureaucracy, but they usually will not pursue and enforce such terms unless there is a clear element of founder fraud involved.

That was a compromise the pioneers and builders of our ecosystem had to make just to get things started in a country that never had a start-up scene. They had to include those terms to appease people high up who din’t understand how to fund start-ups but made sure to never enforce those terms.

With that understanding, it might still be okay to go ahead with that deal, many have benefited from it, but without that understanding and if the deal is done by a private firm, I would never accept a deal that has that term in it.

Adding A Multiple To The Personal Liability & Liquidation Preference For The “Investment Amount”

This just baffles me, that same accelerator had the audacity to add a 6x multiple for their already severely inflated “investment amount” that was mostly made up of benefits in kind to the personal liability the founders had to bear and their liquidation preference.

That meant that if the start-up failed, the founders of the start-up had to pay back that accelerator 6x the “investment amount”, much of which was not even cash they ever received. That’s just crazy.

A founder must be really stupid or careless to accept a deal like this.

Liquidation preferences, on the other hand, are normal. Most VCs have that, they would want to be paid back first with whatever that’s left in the company in the event it closes down or does not exit for an amount that’s higher than what they put in.

Read Also:

How I Almost Lost Hope In Life As A Start-Up Founder

In my opinion, a 1x non-participating liquidation preference is fair to allow the investor to recoup as much as they can up to an amount that they’ve put in just in case the start-up fails. Some more predatory VCs or risky deals might warrant a higher liquidation preference, maybe up to 4x, which is extremely high, but that’s up to the founders to decide whether they would want to live with that and the rewards justify the high liquidation preference — for example if you’re raising a huge amount and you can partially exit during that round, then it might be a risk you might want to take.

Either way, a 6x liquidation preference is just way too high, even more so when most of that base amount was benefits in kind and not cash. To apply that same multiple to a term that should never have existed, to make the founders personally liable, is even more absurd.

No one should ever take such a deal.

Investors Might Be Inexperienced

I asked that founder how well did they know the people running that accelerator, and whether he thought they were sincere and good people. I asked this question because the terms seemed too absurd to be true, and it could be due to the investors being inexperienced and not knowing what terms are fair when investing in a start-up.

Investor’s Lawyers Might Be Using Unsuitable Templates

Sometimes, it might not be the investor’s fault.

The investor might be a good person genuinely interested in investing and helping to build the start-up, but hired the wrong lawyers who don’t really know how to do deals involving start-ups.

Read Also:

Why Am I Sacrificing My Life To Build My Startup — Wowwwz?

Being from a legal background and having many close friends who are lawyers, I have a good idea of the state that our legal profession is in. Given Malaysia’s nascent start-up scene, there aren’t many lawyers who are experts in start-up law and terms that are suitable for start-ups. If you’re using templates meant for conventional businesses, in their attempt to protect their client — the investor’s — interest, they might actually unintentionally be doing more harm than good and might include terms that would kill their investment before it even gets started.

Explain To Your Investors Politely

If that’s the case, my advice to the founder would be to just sit your potential investors down and politely explain to them why you can’t accept those terms and why the terms would kill your start-up or prevent you from raising any future rounds.

If the investors are genuine, they should understand and make the necessary changes.

Sometimes Investors Really Are Assholes

Unfortunately, sometimes investors really are assholes. They are in the business either to flip start-ups to make a quick profit and are willing to do anything to achieve that target including holding the start-up ransom, letting them die or make the founders personally liable so they would be their slaves — in essence they’re a loanshark.

Read Also:

Why Investors Hate Dating Apps

Never Take Money With Asshole Terms

Founders who truly want to build disruptive companies that solves a problem and make life better for everyone should never take money with asshole terms to protect yourselves, your start-up and your mission solve the problem you’ve set out to solve.

Know What Kind Of Start-Up You Want To Build

The next thing is to know what kind of start-up you want to build and what kind of start-up you’re actually building, what terms would be fair for a start-up like yours and what would not.

Start-ups that are solving smaller problems or are limited to a certain locality or region usually command much smaller valuations for good reason, that’s fair. Raising a round at too high a valuation for your start-up might prevent future investors from investing in you too, or might force you to have to raise a down round in the future.

Read Also:

How Is A Dating App An Innovative Idea?

On the other hand, start-ups that aim to solve global problems and have to eventually raise global funding from Silicon Valley investors have other terms to worry about and can’t give out too much equity to make sure they have enough skin in the game.

You need to know what kind of start-up you are building, who you would need to raise money from in the future and what kind of terms they can or can’t accept.

You need to know your start-up’s true market potential and which path you need to take in order to know what’s fair and what’s not for your start-up.

Founders Should Stand Together & Support Each Other More

Nevertheless, start-up founders should stand together and support each other more. VCs talk amongst themselves and share thoughts about deals and founders. Founders should do the same about VCs too so we know who are the good ones and who are the bad ones who might screw us over.

Read Also:

The Next 100 Billion Dollar Start-Up Will Be A Dating App

Many founders are clueless as to what might get them screwed in the future until they actually get screwed years down the road. It would be great if we could share what we know with each other more so we can make more well-informed decisions and avoid pitfalls that might kill our start-up or get us into serious trouble.

Founders Have Right To Know What Are Asshole Terms So They Can Avoid Death

The point of me sharing all these stories is not to point the blame on anyone or start a big woo-ha, that’s totally pointless.

I am sharing these stories to hopefully spark positive change in our ecosystem and also because I believe that founders have the right to know what bad terms to look out for in a term sheet that could kill them or their start-ups.

I am building a start-up myself, and I hope you will help me out a little here so that I can build the tools to help everyone in this world find their soulmate whom they can grow old together and live long happy lives with.

If you have access to a brand, company, working building, community or even VCs, let me know; I can help you build a community of people who like your product or brand and introduce them to each other, or bring a community closer by introducing people at the same building or company to each other!

You can reach me at or LinkedIn.

Don’t forget to SHARE this story and all related stories to as many of your friends too, we need to more people to spread the word so we can start a positive paradigm shift in our ecosystem.

Also, you can help by downloading the app, give us a good rating, subscribe to my Youtube Channel about relationships-coming soon, leave your email, join this Facebook Group and check back every few months for cool updates.

*Search for Wowwwz on the App Store or Play Store to download

JohnsonKhooTV — Subscribe to my upcoming Youtube Channel where I will be talking about real life stories about love & relationships

FB Group To Stay Updated On Wowwwz’s Journey— Join this Facebook Group so you can stay updated on our journey, new features and new stories and new updates on our quest to build a start-up that could help everyone in this world find true love and live happily ever after

You can also follow me on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram.

More stories and articles can be found on my blog or via this link to a list of all published stories here.

Help me out, because many people’s lifetime happiness is in your hands.

Once you’ve downloaded the app and signed up, you can also start to meet other amazing single people in Kuala Lumpur or Singapore who share the same values and interests as you by scanning the QR codes below.

*Search for Wowwwz on the App Store or Play Store to download

SCAN with Wowwwz to meet amazing single people in Kuala Lumpur!

SCAN with Wowwwz to meet amazing single people in Singapore!

Do SHARE this with as many of your single friends as possible so they can find their soulmate soon, we can get more traction, and raise the funding necessary to build you more cool features that will help amazing single people meet each other and amazing couples grow their relationship!

Let’s do this together!

The world needs YOUR HELP so all of us can find true love!

You have the power to become a superhero!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: