加密项目创始人如何挑选合适的 VC?

深潮Publicado em 2025-05-12Última atualização em 2025-05-12

选择合作伙伴往往是一条 「单行道」。

撰文:Alana Levin,Variant 投资合伙人

编译:Luffy,Foresight News

就像 VC 会对投资项目进行尽职调查一样,创始人也应该对潜在投资者进行尽职调查。

VC 的首要任务是增加公司成功的几率。VC 可以通过多种方式实现这一目标,而确定每位投资者能够如何有效地支持自己的初创公司,则应该是创始人尽职调查的核心。如果站在创始人的立场上,我会按照以下条件筛选 VC。

首先,VC 是否真的能提高项目成功几率?

投资者除了提供纯粹的资金之外,还能提供其他价值吗?

我认为是可以的。通过与创始人的交流,以下是 VC 能够真正提供帮助的一些最常被提到的方式。

品牌:获得「第一梯队」 风险投资机构的支持,通常(至少在短期内)会提升公司的品牌。这在招聘人才方面提供了直接帮助。品牌光环效应在招聘最初的 10 名员工时作用稍小,但在公司达到 A 轮融资阶段或之后,它对吸引人才至关重要。鉴于早期招聘的员工对公司发展轨迹和文化有着巨大影响,创始人的理想做法是从自己的人脉网络中吸引这些人才。

强大的品牌意味着该机构或合伙人广为人知、备受尊敬,并被视为项目成功的重要因素。成功就是最好的品牌。

知识和洞察力:投资者是否有可以借鉴的经验,从而能给创业者提供有用的建议?他们是否特别擅长识别影响市场或业务的因素?

这里实际上包含两点:其一,VC 可能从其投资组合中成功的公司(或者他们自己作为创始人的类似经历)中积累的相关经验;其二,他们能够对更广泛的市场动态,以及这些动态在未来 6 到 12 个月内可能对公司产生的影响,提供清晰的认识。

人脉网络:有时 VC 可以帮助创始人(或其他职能部门负责人)接触到合适的人。「合适的人」 可能包括其他有相关经验的高管或潜在客户。创始人仍然需要靠自己争取业务,很少有客户是因为 VC 的影响力而获得的。但投资者肯定可以帮助创业者至少打开一些想要进入的大门。

推广渠道:一些 VC 拥有受众群体,因此,成为 「KOL」 是他们提供的价值的一部分。如今这一点很明显:许多 VC 正试图通过播客、时事通讯、X 账号等建立自己的推广渠道。有时,这些渠道确实可以成为为新初创公司提升知名度和引流的有效手段。

你收到了投资邀约,接下来该怎么做?

首先,恭喜你!有机会从一系列有竞争力的投资邀约中进行选择,这既是一种成就,也是一种特权。花点时间享受这个过程。

你很可能已经对想要与之合作的对象有了一些直觉判断。尽职调查过程往往能揭示一些情况,比如人们提出的问题类型、他们在整个过程中分享的见解、他们跟进的响应速度,以及是否感觉在文化上相契合等等。

是时候验证这种直觉了。以下是我将遵循的流程,无先后顺序:

对投资者进行背景调查:这些调查应该涵盖 VC 投资组合中成功的公司,以及那些濒临或已经倒闭的公司。了解投资者在成功和压力情况下分别是怎样的合作伙伴,这一点很重要。理想情况下,这些参考对象是与你潜在合作的投资者也有合作的公司。

检查冲突风险:该机构是否有投资相互竞争公司的历史?更重要的是,他们是否投资了任何理论上可能与你的公司竞争的公司?

考虑合伙人在该机构的任期:通常,你选择的既是一个机构,也是一个个人合作伙伴。我鼓励更多创始人询问潜在合作伙伴的抱负和未来计划。一个相关的思考实验是问问自己:如果这个合作伙伴明天离开,你对这家机构还会感兴趣吗?

确定该机构是否与你的公司所处阶段匹配:一个基金是否持续投资与你的公司处于相同阶段的企业,这会影响其资源的有用性、你的公司在资源分配中被优先考虑的程度,以及投资者能提供的建议的相关性。一个 10 亿美元规模的基金提供 500 万美元的种子轮投资,这笔投资只占其总分配额的 0.5%。坦率地说,如果一个基金向后期公司投入 5000 万到 1 亿美元,那么前一个公司获得机构在内部的关注和帮助就变得更困难了。

了解该机构对退出的看法:这听起来可能有点奇怪。但在当前 IPO 越来越少见的时代,了解投资者对收购或出售二级股权的看法,能为你避免日后的很多麻烦。同样,在加密货币领域,了解投资者对出售代币的看法,对于代币设计和推出策略来说是一个有用的参考因素。

选择合作伙伴往往是一条 「单行道」。挑选合适的 VC 永远不能 「成就」 一家公司,但它可以提高公司成功的几率,并且至少能让创始人的日子好过一点。多花几天时间对潜在投资者进行尽职调查,从长远来看可能会带来回报。

Leituras Relacionadas

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbitHá 48m

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbitHá 48m

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbitHá 1h

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbitHá 1h

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbitHá 1h

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbitHá 1h

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbitHá 1h

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
活动图片