there have been huge strides in the Uk scene since I left in '07 and it saddens me to see something like this happen.
I think the confusion is over what the last seedcamp day is about, it isnt demo day, it is the interview process, seedcamp have just made the interview process more transparent and open to help others and not just the teams that get funded, which has obviously introduced some confusion.
Seedcamp holds 2 more open demo days along the same lines of YC, one at the middle and one at the end of the cycle
so you're saying that there's no selection process before the companies stand up and pitch on this day? so then, in theory, anyone who wants to do a startup could turn up and pitch? unless that's the case, then the comparison to yc doesn't stand up.
I dont see how any can demand to be a part of seedcamps (or ycs) selection process.
Clean, simple, no misalignment.
It seems that Seedcamp is goofy by front loading the deliverables but won't commit to the investment. That's awkward for the mentors and the companies that are accepted/obliged to take whatever deal is given to them.
That feels like a poor place to negotiate vaulation from, and a major misalignment for the non-investing mentors.
That's why there are lots of networking and mentoring events (local Mini-Seedcamps, Seedcamp week) up front that many dozens of teams profit from, even though only 5-7 receive an investment.
I'm sure the selected teams aren't actually legally obliged to take whatever deal is offered, at least it wasn't at all that way for us last year.
Can someone confirm this? It seems as if this is a recent change.
It's ok for them to strongly warn you that you shouldn't approach them if you are not interested in taking their money. Why waste their time?
On the other hand, cold feet is always acceptable.
It's called a covenant of good faith.
If some startup founders rejected 50,000 Euros and great advisers, for a 5-10% share , there is something broken in the model. At least from the pov of the (vetted, chosen) people doing the rejecting if 50,000 Euros is not providing enough value they ae well within their rights to reject it.
Fixing the broken parts may pay off more than making arbitrary rules that people have to accept whoever puts up 50k Euros. This is like saying people have to accept jobs because "we put so much effort into interviewing you". Such rules are probably unenforceable anyway and make the proposers look like idiots.
My (simple) point is that people should be able to sign or not as they please, without psychlogical pressure to do so.
If people back off, figure out why and fix it vs "changing the rules this year" or whatever)