Hexagon Lavish (HL™), an exemplary startup of pallor, has grown from uno to….quite a few more scientists, engineers, programmers and presumable mathematicians–essentially, a group of individuals who gravitated towards the magnetic presence that comprises HL™–and we’re still growing. We’re growing with an insurmountable fixture of courage accompanied with a soon coming crowdfunding campaign that will be launching in January (2016).
With that said, we are now beginning to progress into the Age of HL™ and, although a huge chunk of updates on the startup’s status has pretty much been absent here on Arheliean [and please accept my sincere apologies for being largely “absent” from blogging]–for the last few month–some events that have transpired this year have helped quite a bit in establishing the startup’s name–but, I won’t go into those…well, maybe just one. Trajectory.
I reflect back on the trajectory of growth [in numbers, to say] that the startup caught onto ever since arriving back from my short-stay in the Big Apple in May and I would say that it has given me self-imposed permission to avoid the grandiloquent rhetorical “savvy” (snicker) that’s known to jump from the tongue of Silicon Valley’s most providentially “gifted” (snicker), propitious and magnanimous go-to-sage, Peter Thiel (HEEEY PETER! HEEEY GIRRRLLL!!). P. Thiel, the modern-day Heraclitus, armed with an unparalleled profundity, whose towering wisdom gleams like an incandescent pharos over the ocean of relativist prevarication, demagoguery and petty sophistry known as the aforementioned locale [Silicon Valley]. Coated in amounts of pusillanimity only equaling to that of the silky strands of Ariadne all the while shepherding the caliginous minds out of the forlorn labyrinth of post-modernity that’s typically cosigned by the severely gullible on their vain, Ivy League-endeavors to fill their Masters’ shoes, to no avail, homeboy Thiel provides the resources enabling wannabe-CEOs to fall deep into the abyss of an inpalatable Babylon of bleating tongues most come across at Stanford until the apportioners of fate [read: “rulers of law“] decree to cleft such a fine proposal. Not even on an occasional delight would Thiel take it upon himself (asking too much?) to raise the lusterless spirits of the varying Bay Area-denizens whom have grown accustomed to his insipid pabulum passing for facetiousness, here, in the present, but can’t quite expunge those effervescently scintillating yet acerbic pasquinades. Oh, and
he’s dumb as fuck he has a difficult time comprehending basic economics. I guess that’s mean.
A lot of people, who reside in a city that is literally filled with universities, research labs and cultural institutions–and media outlets–are under the false pretense that they’ve somehow magically [and osmotically] absorbed all of the requisite knowledge to understand any and every environment they optionally surround themselves. These very same people aren’t even cognizant of the fact that they’re only good for middling navel-gazing in their self-woven webs of self-righteous contradiction and random recanting. By “recanting”, I’m referring to the indolent cries from the “rulers of law” (investors) months ago [this past year of 2015] where they decried the many “overvalued” startups [those wingless “unicorns”] that were–and still are–prevalent in 2015–and, at the same time, were accused of being an accomplice in the crime of “going with the flow”, or in layman’s terms, ensuring that the wide variety of those same unicorns’ founders would surely suffer a fate that can only be compared to being found deceased from a premature death in a run-down studio apartment where they would be found face-down in a bowl of Farina, wife-beater stretched and frayed, with a ragged copy of Behold A Pale Horse dog-eared on the page about reptilian Bureaucrats putting flouride in the water supply. Also, one would have to factor-in the manufactured “reality” that hero-worship is real, very real to the idolaters of VCs (venture capitalists) nowadays. Anyone seeking to make a “hero” out of an–investor–or whomsoever–is obnoxiously stupid. In that last blog post, from October [that was inevitably deleted due to the aberrant nature of its subject matter], I had stated my personal take on America’s white kids, in regards to how reprehensible and moronic the overwhelming majority of them tend to be. These same white kids are the ones who utilized social media tools [tools that VCs willfully poured their money into] to showcase their disdain for John Boyega being featured as a lead in the latest Star Wars installment; a film which depicts the fictional character of “Finn” as a Black eunuch under the guise of a “hero”.
As a rule of thumb when it comes to learning how to laugh at the dominant society’s “heroes”, you must acquire the cojones to mock their attempts to emulate their “heroes”. For instance, the majority of white male-led startup founders are more vengeful than they are narcissistic, extremely convinced of moral superiority, swayed mostly by philosophy (i.e., their constant references/quoting of Aristotle and the like), disdainful of the rule of law (however, respectful of the “rulers of law“) and largely disinterested in the repercussions of their actions. For a deeper perspective, that was the same mentality behind the men who killed Emmett Till. My conviction that’s the motivation behind HL™ is of a different magnitude and goes beyond Django Unchained. The conviction on part of my non-Black male counterparts, at least, on the surface as it’s presented to its targeted audience [potential consumers], presents an end-game. This is where reality is suppose to kick-in because in reality there is no end-game. You work hard as hell, and then you die. If you do not find joy in the hard work, then there’s no point. You’re 80 years old and a Nobel Prize winner? Great, that’s where the journey begins. Just one thing: you don’t have another 80 years waiting around the corner for you–and you still have work to do before you “clock out”. That said, it’s a little easier to see why some people have grown accustomed to “liking the grind“. Once you’ve climbed to the top of the mountain things begin to look a bit different because you soon come to the realization that you have a few more mountaintops to reach.
One really trill character trait you might want to have in heart and mind is the impression that you’re not just fighting against racial bigotry online exclusively. The best weapon to have in your repertoire is the skill of observation. We all have the tool of observation [it’s inherent], but only a select few have the capability of honing observation as a skill. Observation permits the ability to make predictions, which is the output from utilizing the vehicle of scientific input. Take this same principle and apply it to markets. For a better insight, say, I were an investor myself and I wanted to make an investment in, oh, I don’t know–how about Fab? I’m an investor, and like the now-antiquated capacity of an A&R executive–I truly do not know what I’m looking for–so, I’ll settle for what seemingly looks like a venture that’s presumptuously promising. So I, along with several of my investor buddies raising a large sum of money to invest into an early-stage company that we’ve spent hours assuring that we’re putting our money into a “unicorn” (a $billion+) that we hope will return–at a minimum–10xs the money we’ve raised. I, along with my colleagues, view the founders of this “astounding” (snicker) startup with so much faith and obsequious flattery (in reference to Fab, investors were impressed a couple of outspoken homosexuals wanted to sell items over the internet–speciaaaaal!!) that we value the startup at nearly $1.5B only to come in contact, face-first, with the reality that the startup will end getting sold for only $15M because we were incognizant and foolish enough to overvalue the purpose of putting money behind the “hopes and dreams” (snicker) of a group of morons who would be stupid enough to hire over 750 employees and burn-through nearly $14M a month. But, I thought I found a winner, what happened?
What happened is what happens all the time: decisions are based on the fact that investors invest in people, not ideas and definitely not the “hopes and dreams” (snicker) of entrepreneurs the world over. The looming promise of making at least 10xs the return on the investment capital one [or more] investors would contribute to a budding startup is tempting (I’ve heard the word “tempting” as it leaped from the tongue of one investor after I had introduced him to the HL™ Team back in August), however, it’s the characteristics of the founders from which the decision derives.
What is it about you (the entrepreneur) that would compel “me” (the investor) to commit money to your “idea” (the business model)?
Well, for me, the answer is simple: I’m a Black man who came up with the proposition of developing scientific-based software for allergen detection, distinction, classification and analysis. See, the fact that I’m Black (capital “B” denotes an Americanized classification, not race, which in this case would be Melanoid) naturally imposes my manner of being influential (think of how Black music (hip hop) has taken over the world, yet no one in, say Japan, is reciting Conway Twitty lyrics), which draws emphasis on how I was able to put together the HL™ Team. The reason why I would stand behind this self-imposed mantra is because of the fact that white males are not naturally-inclined to being influential. For them, it’s not inherent. Influence, on part of the white male, stems from: so-called “education”; military and war; stolen resources (capital in the form of cash and credit), etc. Melanoid people do not harbor the desire to kill to justify their influence. However, despite how skillful the Black man is at wielding the double-edged sword of influence, that’s “not going” to persuade the overwhelming and largely white “rulers of law” to throw some money my way, and that’s very telling of the world that we live in–and I say “world” because the dominant society has succeeded in having convinced (not “influenced”), or even better said, coerced, the “world” into thinking that those of us whom are Melanoid ain’t worthy of ya’ dollars. Instead, they’ll prefer a gay white male who resembles a red-headed Opie Cunningham with Down’s Syndrome because Opie wouldn’t put up a fight. Keep in mind: all preferences are conditioned by a bias. An investor the likes of Peter Thiel would prefer an entrepreneur who fantasizes about instigating the “fight against death“, electric cars (despite the fact that the U.S. electrical grid is antiquated and that it would cost over $3.5 trillion USD just to “improve” it), online payments and anything that’s outlandish–like putting humans on Mars [to die…so much for the “fight against death“].
Putting “faith” (capital, in the form of cash and credit) in a startup that’s not working on making the world a better place to ensure the continuous perpetuation of the human species is inessential to the purpose of making an investment. To bring this all to perspective, think of how a good grip of articles and op-eds concerning the lives of entrepreneurs and the day-to-day activities of [insert name] venture capitalists you come across (online) with “crazy ideas” being part of the discussed topic. A lot of people shun “crazy ideas”, but not for good reason–it’s mostly on part of self-assured ignorance and lack of having any compelling fortitude to pursue what’s currently labeled as “impossible”. It seems that the standard response to anyone who would suggest any new and “crazy idea” is:
“That’s nice and all, but too bad we can’t invest in it because we do not have the money to do so…”
At that point, you (the entrepreneur) are supposed to stop thinking. This is what your typical contrarian investor would expect. Don’t do it.
“…too bad we can’t invest in it because we do not have the money to do so…” is a cop-out. It’s an answer you’ll receive from angel investors, VCs, institutional investors and the like over and over and over until you arrive at the point where you’ll have to find out exactly what is this thing people call “money”. Also, it’s part of your education [or, it should be]. Your response in response to the investor’s response should be, “Okay, exactly how much money would you need?” Typically, this answer lies with you, in your executive summary, however, this is where the conversation now turns in your favor because the money-holders haven’t the slightest clue.
Getting down to the nitty-gritty, a $1B valuation is pennies–pennies. Let’s say the biochemical research that goes into the PIR software development cost $3.5B-$5.75B. Investors will quickly gaffe and state that it’s too costly. Really?
$35,000 * 100,000 undergraduate/graduate students on their internship at HL™ = $3.5B
$115,000 * 50,000 full-time biochemists/biophysicists working at HL™ = $5.75B
If you were to tell me that a credible investor would consider investing in a startup that sells sex toys over a startup that conducts scientific research to develop software that will determine just how effective particular allergens are to people who have a known history to specific allergens, I would look at you with ill-contempt, mawfucka. However, investors would more than likely view a startup that sells sex toys more valuable since there’s a proven history of sex toys selling in respective markets (people who like shoving particular objects in certain holes; people who were molested as children who now molest children, etc.). Juxtapose that with allergen detection software that has yet to prove itself on the market. We call that uncertainty, however, an experienced investor would take that uncertainty and weigh that against the demand for allergen detection software (people falling over dead face-first in a stack of pancakes made from flour that contains wheat that was grown in a peanut field) and also against the supply (how many startups are focused on developing products that address issues effecting people worldwide?). So, startup Sex Toys Fo’ Sell gets a PMV (pre-money valuation) of $1B, meanwhile HL™ sits on a PMV of….
See, this is why I subscribe to the opinion that investors selectively determine the PMVs of some of these ridiculous startups, regardless of performance, and not only that, but you have to take a careful look at what exactly these “unicorns” do. In a layman’s way of making it sensible, for a “notable investor” (snicker), who goes by their preference and not by what’s actually needed on the market, a startup would have to participate in some sort of vertical that caters its convoluted “purpose” towards the development of video games, “virtual reality”, “smart drugs”, “evil robots/booty boy androids” or some other biased vertical where two or more words that have no correlation with one another are combined in efforts of presenting something that’s “new and innovative“. This is a form of some manufactured, ill-gotten gain. Now, I’m sure some of you would say, “No Desmond, investors look for the best to invest in.” All right, let’s look at this word “best“. “Best” is subjective. If I don’t see you as being better than me then why would I bother listening to you? This is how I look at most of Silicon Valley’s “best” or “top notch” investors. They say that they’re looking for the “best” startups to invest in, but the majority of the ones whom they invest in aren’t involved in any activity that reflects what the “best” would be doing. Breaking it down even further, these investors are pretty much letting you know that they play the position of power because in order to say or describe who the “best” are, you have to be in a position of power–and–the people that get to define who the “best” and what qualities the “best” need to have, usually define it so that the “best” people are people that look, think and act like they do. We all have heard that “actions speak louder than words” and you can usually figure out what someone really believes not by what they say but how they act.
Regarding the money, or, getting the money rather, you have to realize this “position of power” investors seemingly have [at the surface]–the more money [they] have, the more resources you have to figure out the rules to the game. One rule that I’m cognizant of is the fact that there’s no shame in being “in it for the money“. Now, one thing you want to keep in mind is that you’ll quickly end up getting the “gold rush” syndrome. Someone strikes it rich doing one thing, so here comes everyone else (i.e., entrepreneurs making there way to Silicon Valley) only, most people make their way there and find out that just about all of the gold is gone. The problem that you see with all of these startups is that they’re en route to the next iteration of the previous iteration of the previous iteration of the previous iteration of the previous iteration of the previous iteration of the previous iteration of the previous iteration of the previous iteration of some startup that “started it all“. You cannot put confines on money because money–all forms of money–cannot be ruled under control since “control” is a principle that will never be owned by anyone or any entity (i.e., energy, matter, etc.).
Control is very elusive because no one has “control” of anything.
Control is chaotic; and money is no different. The “rulers of law” possess little-to-no comprehension of this simple corollary, but the people who understand the rules of the game know full-well of the inference. Those entrepreneurs are the ones who will make the most “money”–in the long-run (long-term). Entrepreneurs of this ilk do not chase trends; they’re not the founders of startups that “repeat the cycle“; and they most definitely do not adopt the behavioral patterns of those caught-up in “hero worship”. They take ownership of the responsibility of defining the parameters by which their business will operate.