My takeaway is that as an entrepreneur, the best leverage you have is from interested outside investors. If you have different options for funding, even if it’s only $1-2m in a situation like the one you describe here, then you can change the dynamic of the board conversations entirely.
Dang brother thanks for sharing. What a journey you have been on. Kudos for taking the time to integrate and communicate your struggles and your insights.
Congratulations for having the bravery to create something new, to give it your all and to take the time to reflect and learn in public.
Thanks for sharing your lessons, I know the closure of Nori must have been painful for you. I have some questions for my own curiosity if you ever see this (all in good faith!)
>If that 4th chair was filled, do you think that person would have been heard?
>Did this governance snafu suggest something to you about the kinds of VCs you were building with?
>What could have gotten done in 18 months that didn't get done in 12? I understand you had deals you were trying to close -- was it new customers that came up in that last few months of funding?
Thanks for commenting and the nice words. I do think an independent (considering the individuals I would have shortlisted) would have been listened to, but I think only in terms of scale, not that it would have totally changed the outcome. It was over a series of weeks and months where that difference would have been felt, not just one meeting.
As Jason says in another comment, it’s important to work with interested investors and be picky when you have the option to. And as he points out, options are the leverage. Nori was a weird company, where we didn’t quite fit perfectly into any fund’s thesis. In each funding round we only ever had one term sheet, so we ended up with the best we could get.
It was deals we had in progress. The feedback our CEO was getting on the pitch was all positive about his vision and plan, they just wanted to see more sales. Carbon sales are often a once a year purchase for customers so the sales cycles can be quite long. And we had some big, well known brands in the sales pipeline. No guarantees we would have closed any of them, but it would have been nice to have had the chance.
Thanks for sharing this story and your takeaways so transparently. I wonder if different types of investors might have been a better fit for a category-creating company, especially given the climate impact you were creating. For example, impact investors have a different risk-return-impact prioritization, and perhaps might have been more open to sufficient additional funding. Were impact investors ever a consideration or a target investor for Nori?
Oh yes, I pitched to everyone I could, and impact investors were often a target. But in my experience, they were unfortunately the least likely to fund what we were doing because it was too weird/novel. They couldn’t get over the hump of understanding crypto/blockchain. So we had to go with more tech-forward investors.
My takeaway is that as an entrepreneur, the best leverage you have is from interested outside investors. If you have different options for funding, even if it’s only $1-2m in a situation like the one you describe here, then you can change the dynamic of the board conversations entirely.
Dang brother thanks for sharing. What a journey you have been on. Kudos for taking the time to integrate and communicate your struggles and your insights.
Congratulations for having the bravery to create something new, to give it your all and to take the time to reflect and learn in public.
Big props Paul 🙏
Thanks for sharing your lessons, I know the closure of Nori must have been painful for you. I have some questions for my own curiosity if you ever see this (all in good faith!)
>If that 4th chair was filled, do you think that person would have been heard?
>Did this governance snafu suggest something to you about the kinds of VCs you were building with?
>What could have gotten done in 18 months that didn't get done in 12? I understand you had deals you were trying to close -- was it new customers that came up in that last few months of funding?
Thanks for commenting and the nice words. I do think an independent (considering the individuals I would have shortlisted) would have been listened to, but I think only in terms of scale, not that it would have totally changed the outcome. It was over a series of weeks and months where that difference would have been felt, not just one meeting.
As Jason says in another comment, it’s important to work with interested investors and be picky when you have the option to. And as he points out, options are the leverage. Nori was a weird company, where we didn’t quite fit perfectly into any fund’s thesis. In each funding round we only ever had one term sheet, so we ended up with the best we could get.
It was deals we had in progress. The feedback our CEO was getting on the pitch was all positive about his vision and plan, they just wanted to see more sales. Carbon sales are often a once a year purchase for customers so the sales cycles can be quite long. And we had some big, well known brands in the sales pipeline. No guarantees we would have closed any of them, but it would have been nice to have had the chance.
Thanks for sharing this story and your takeaways so transparently. I wonder if different types of investors might have been a better fit for a category-creating company, especially given the climate impact you were creating. For example, impact investors have a different risk-return-impact prioritization, and perhaps might have been more open to sufficient additional funding. Were impact investors ever a consideration or a target investor for Nori?
Oh yes, I pitched to everyone I could, and impact investors were often a target. But in my experience, they were unfortunately the least likely to fund what we were doing because it was too weird/novel. They couldn’t get over the hump of understanding crypto/blockchain. So we had to go with more tech-forward investors.
Intresting. Had a very similar story. wasn't fun.