Decius wrote:

Digg gets up to 1,000 links submitted every day and 500,000 visitors each month, radiating traffic around the web. Its growth has been so pronounced that the site's own server melted down earlier this month.

But extra infrastructure and new staff will be added, thanks to a $2.8 million investment from a high-profile consortium of angel investors, including Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen.

Well, this is annoying news. Digg is very similar to MemeStreams. We do the technology better, but they have a much better look and feel, thanks, of course, to the fact that they have millions of dollars in funding to hire designers and pay people to sit and code.

We could beat the pants off of them for a fraction of this money.

They must have something that you don't have, which is a business model that entreats people to give them $2.8M.

Decius wrote:

Digg gets up to 1,000 links submitted every day and 500,000 visitors each month, radiating traffic around the web. Its growth has been so pronounced that the site's own server melted down earlier this month.

But extra infrastructure and new staff will be added, thanks to a $2.8 million investment from a high-profile consortium of angel investors, including Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen.

Well, this is annoying news. Digg is very similar to MemeStreams. We do the technology better, but they have a much better look and feel, thanks, of course, to the fact that they have millions of dollars in funding to hire designers and pay people to sit and code.

We could beat the pants off of them for a fraction of this money.

That is hard. They seem limited to tech news, of course, where our community is much broader, though not actually larger, it doesn't seem. It's never seemed to me though that you were particularly interested in VC, if only because "angel" investors tend to get huge amounts of control over your company.

k wrote:
That is hard.

I don't think so. We're been thinking about this stuff for a long time. We know where to take it. Its a matter of resources and not a matter of vision.

It's never seemed to me though that you were particularly interested in VC, if only because "angel" investors tend to get huge amounts of control over your company.

If someone was interested in investing in this so that we could have a developer working full time on it I wouldn't look them in them mouth. I think we could do a hell of a lot with even just one developer.

Decius wrote:

k wrote:
That is hard.

I don't think so. We're been thinking about this stuff for a long time. We know where to take it. Its a matter of resources and not a matter of vision.

It's never seemed to me though that you were particularly interested in VC, if only because "angel" investors tend to get huge amounts of control over your company.

If someone was interested in investing in this so that we could have a developer working full time on it I wouldn't look them in them mouth. I think we could do a hell of a lot with even just one developer.

I say fuck 'em and gank their site layout. Maybe something in red?

-janelane, mechanical development

Decius wrote:

k wrote:
That is hard.

I don't think so. We're been thinking about this stuff for a long time. We know where to take it. Its a matter of resources and not a matter of vision.

I meant the news was hard. As in, tough to hear, or unfortunate. We've spoken enough that I'm certain what you say is true, that the vision is in place, but not the financials. It's unfortunate that the economy is such that even 50-100k in funding isn't available for a project with so much potential.

Decius wrote:

k wrote:
That is hard.

I don't think so. We're been thinking about this stuff for a long time. We know where to take it. Its a matter of resources and not a matter of vision.

It's never seemed to me though that you were particularly interested in VC, if only because "angel" investors tend to get huge amounts of control over your company.

If someone was interested in investing in this so that we could have a developer working full time on it I wouldn't look them in them mouth. I think we could do a hell of a lot with even just one developer.

If you want investors, you have to have a formal written business plan. Which doesn't mean a plan as in "this is what we're planning to do over the next 5 years," but a plan as in, "This is what we think the market can make, this is how much money we want for our company, and this is what kind of return our investors can expect." Do you have that? A written plan, in a language that bankers and VC can understand?

Elonka wrote:
If you want investors, you have to have a formal written business plan. Which doesn't mean a plan as in "this is what we're planning to do over the next 5 years," but a plan as in, "This is what we think the market can make, this is how much money we want for our company, and this is what kind of return our investors can expect. Do you have that? A written plan, in a language that bankers and VC can understand?

Well, we had the makings of this back when we got started, but in 2001 the idea of a consumer oriented website did the same thing to investors that soap does to water. Rattle and I talked yesterday about putting something together again.

Decius wrote:

Elonka wrote:
If you want investors, you have to have a formal written business plan. Which doesn't mean a plan as in "this is what we're planning to do over the next 5 years," but a plan as in, "This is what we think the market can make, this is how much money we want for our company, and this is what kind of return our investors can expect. Do you have that? A written plan, in a language that bankers and VC can understand?

Well, we had the makings of this back when we got started, but in 2001 the idea of a consumer oriented website did the same thing to investors that soap does to water. Rattle and I talked yesterday about putting something together again.

I think you need to dust this off and quick. For one, you and I know that you have many opportunities with what you've developed but you've got to strike the iron when it's hot. Two, you and I also know that where there's one company in a space that's gotten funding, there are two or more than haven't (yet). Sometimes if a space is hot enough or strategic enough (or sometimes still, when someone has a grudge at XYZ VC firm) that copy cats will get funded. This is particularly true if the growth rate is good but the model is not clear (witness anything having to do with blogs). VC is all about spreading risk, so growth matters more than anything and we'll find the model eventually that will win.

I'd be glad to help here btw.

Decius wrote:

Digg gets up to 1,000 links submitted every day and 500,000 visitors each month, radiating traffic around the web. Its growth has been so pronounced that the site's own server melted down earlier this month.

But extra infrastructure and new staff will be added, thanks to a $2.8 million investment from a high-profile consortium of angel investors, including Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen.

Well, this is annoying news. Digg is very similar to MemeStreams. We do the technology better, but they have a much better look and feel, thanks, of course, to the fact that they have millions of dollars in funding to hire designers and pay people to sit and code.

We could beat the pants off of them for a fraction of this money.

There's two ways to think about this. One is, "they do the same thing not as well and they're not as smart and they got funded... harrrrumph!" The other is... "Hey, if those bozos can get funded, then WE can get funded!" Time for another round of VC soul whoring?

This site has all the big monster brains though.