logo-dark

Welcome to our blog.


There’s a lot in the press these days about the behavior of some venture capitalists toward women entrepreneurs. The industry – or at least parts of it – needs to change. That isn’t what this article is about. (It is, however, what this article is about.)

This article is instead about what I’ve learned pitching venture capitalists for Ellevest. While one might be tempted to try to avoid the VC path – and there are an increasing number of ways for entrepreneurs to raise money, such as angel groups and crowdfunding – for now, if you’re raising above a certain amount, you’re going to have to go the venture capital route. And I’m hoping that maybe – just maybe – VCs will work to up their game with women entrepreneurs, and so there will be greater funding opportunities. Some already are.

So here are some of my lessons learned about asking-for-money don’ts:

Don’t forget about the business.

A product is necessary. A product is important. A product is great. But a product isn’t a business, and VCs want to back entrepreneurs who show that they can actually build a business.

So your pitch shouldn’t just focus on a product roadmap, which is what a lot of new entrepreneurs do. You should also include a company roadmap in which you explain how you’re going to build a business from that product. A few things to consider in your roadmap: determining how you’ll acquire customers, testing how you’ll monetize the business, and future fundraising milestones you’ll aim for if things work out well.

It’s not the end of the world if your company roadmap ends up changing — not at all. Heck, there’s a good chance it will (pivots are more common than you think). That’s why you should also think of your pitch deck as a living, breathing document — something you adjust as you encounter objections or questions while talking to different VCs. And always include numbers in your deck: this will be market size in the earlier stages of your business and your earnings model later on.

Don’t start with the risks.

I’ve seen many women pitch, and I’ve seen many men pitch. One of the biggest differences? A lot of women open with the risks associated with their businesses; I’ve never, ever, ever seen men do that.

According to a recent study, VCs are already more likely to ask women entrepreneurs about the downsides of their business than they are men. That same study found that the more time entrepreneurs spend addressing risk in a pitch, the lower their odds of getting funded. (Not surprising; it’s like when someone says, “Ugh, this tastes pretty bad! You have to try it”…I’m betting you say no.) So instead of giving VCs a reason to discount your business, lead with the upside and give them a reason to get excited.

Don’t fundraise based on runway.

Figuring out how much money you need to raise can be hard for a first-time entrepreneur. So a lot of people pitch VCs in terms of “I need $A to hire B engineers” or “I need $X for Y amount of runway.” And all of this might be true…but VCs don’t really care about that. (Again, they’re about the business.)

A better approach? Focus on tying your fundraising to your business goals. For example, instead of talking about how you need that money to hire those engineers, talk about how you need that money to build a mobile app (which those engineers will build). Less focus on input, more focus on output.

Don’t ask for money that doesn’t match your business stage.

VCs are used to an established fundraising cycle, one in which each business stage has a widely accepted range of funding attached to it.

bloopost

If the amount of money you’re trying to raise doesn’t line up with your business stage, you’re going to end up raising eyebrows. (“She said she wants to scale, but she’s only raising $250K — is she really ready to scale?”) And the worst thing you can do is give a VC reason to second-guess how well you understand your business. Which brings me to the next point…

Don’t skip business stages.

Especially not the launch stage. It’s easy to get excited after you have a great prototype and build an awesome team and then think, “Hey, we’re ready to scale and take over the world!” But it’s during the considerably less sexy launch stage that you learn which channels are the best for your business and will be most useful in helping you scale effectively later on. Skip this stage, and you won’t be able to use that knowledge to inform important business decisions in the future.

Conclusion? The stages in a funding cycle are sequential, so it’s good to follow the flow and go through each one.

Don’t waste your time talking to the wrong investors.

VCs specialize in certain sectors and business stages. This second point is really important: some VCs only do seed/early-stage funding while others only fund companies that are at their Series A, Series B, etc. You can have a great business, but if you’re looking for money to help you launch, a VC that specializes in growth stage companies typically can’t help you.

That’s why you want to spend your time researching (Pitchbook and Crunchbase are pretty helpful), networking with, and pitching to VCs who actually invest in your sector and companies at your stage.

Fit can matter too. If you have the choice, you want to pitch to a VC who’s excited about your business from the get-go and is ready to share advice and help out before the money even hits your bank account.

You’ll have a better chance of doing this by looking into VCs beforehand. Check out deals they’ve already made on Crunchbase to get a feel for their interests. And do backchannel checks through mutual contacts (preferably at a company they’ve invested in) or via strategic LinkedIn connections — to learn what it’s like to work with them. I actually did three backchannel checks on our lead investor during our latest raise; and they were doing the same on us.

Don’t squander early impressions.

VCs will talk about your business when you aren’t in the room, so you want them to get what your business is about as much as possible. You can do this by first making sure your deck stands on its own. Since VCs often want to see your deck in advance, having a strong one can pique their interest (not the same as getting them to invest, but a necessary first step).

In the event that a VC ends up presenting your business to fellow partners, give him or her the answers to some of the stickier questions you’ve faced or expect will be asked. True story: we sent our deck to a potential investor who was fired up about Ellevest. So fired up that she presented the deck to her partners before walking through it with us; as a result, she wasn’t prepared to answer some pretty basic questions about our business. So…as you probably guessed…her partners weren’t interested. Even after we took her through the deck and gave her the answers, they still weren’t interested. And they remained not interested after we offered to fly out and present to them. Sigh.

Last thing: get your “elevator pitch” down to a few impactful sentences. Short and sweet so you can deliver it in the time it takes to ride in an elevator (hence the name). It also needs to be easily repeatable — something that a VC can share in a meeting with his/her partners immediately after hearing it. Like “I just met the co-founder of Ellevest. They’ve built an investment platform that’s working to close the gender investing gap. Who even knew that existed…but it’s huge. They’ve really focused the offering on how women want to invest — and they’ve built their investing plans to take into account things like women’s longer lives and earlier salary peaks.”

I’ll say it again: don’t forget the numbers.

It’s not fair and it’s not right, but women are often viewed as being less quantitative than men. So make sure that you bring the numbers, and know them cold. At earlier stages, this is going to be potential market size; later, the earnings model will become more important. But focusing in on the market potential, how you will make money, what the key performance indictors will be, what the eventual economics will be are key. These early modeling attempts will of course be wrong, but they will provide you with a rough map and guideposts as you build the business. (And they will demonstrate that you know your numbers.)

And don’t go in cold.

Fact: A network is an entrepreneur’s best resource. I met my co-founder through my network, and I’ve raised funding for Ellevest through my network.

Clearly, connections go a long way; and your odds of a successful VC pitch shoot up if you get a warm introduction through a shared contact. So leverage your existing relationships to get in touch with someone — a partner, principal, or junior employee — at a VC firm. And then repeat…because you’ll have to speak to multiple while you’re fundraising.

VCs get thousands of pitches annually and only invest in a handful of companies each year, so the odds aren’t exactly in your favor. Research suggests that you may have to meet with 20-30 VCs before one decides to invest in your Series A or B. And that’s not counting the VCs you talk to who end up not being interested in meeting with you at all. Think of it as a funnel: you start out by contacting a lot of VCs, move on to meeting with some of those VCs, and then you continue the fundraising conversation with a fraction of that group.

I get that depending on who you know and where you live, getting in touch with someone at a VC firm is a lot easier said than done. But as an entrepreneur, hustling to get what you need isn’t anything new to you. (It’s basically the entire job description.) You’re doing it day in and day out — persuading people, networking with people, and cultivating relationships. So do what you have to do to get that intro.

And the one…or two…or twenty more after that.

Finally – and perhaps most importantly – don’t forget the passion.

Would you want to invest in an entrepreneur who is crazy nuts over what they are doing? Or someone else? Tell the VC why you’re so driven to solve this problem, why it has to be you, why it has to be your team, why the mission is so important to you, why you and your team are the ones to solve it. Make yourself memorable.

A version of this article was published on Ellevest.com

Sallie Krawcheck is the CEO and Co-Founder of Ellevest, a (venture-capital-funded) digital investment platform for women. She is the Chair of the Ellevate Network and the Pax Ellevate Global Women’s Index Fund, as well as the best-selling author of Own It: The Power of Women at Work.

IMAGINE LOGGING INTO your checking account and seeing that you now also have a second account, stocked with an equal amount of a newly created currency. It could happen this morning to many people who hold the cryptocurrency bitcoin.

Not long after 8 am EDT, a new currency called Bitcoin Cash is due to appear, split from bitcoin in a technical maneuver called a “hard fork.” It’s the project of a group that says bitcoin’s keepers are limiting its reach by resisting change.

The creation of Bitcoin Cash is the most striking result yet of a 2-year-old feud over bitcoin’s future. Bitcoin is collectively valued at $47 billion but remains a niche product. Backers of the new currency say it’s necessary if bitcoin is to make a real mark on how the world uses money.

Bitcoin Cash’s confusing origin—and name—risk making it harder for cryptocurrency to gain wider acceptance. “Bitcoin’s an incredibly well-known brand, and to the extent it’s fracturing into various pieces, that’s confusing to regulators and consumers,” says Dan Morehead, founder and CEO of Pantera Capital, which invests in bitcoin and digital-currency startups. Morehead says he’s neutral on the dispute. “It just sounds bad; we’re not used to currencies that split into two.”

Adding to the confusion: Not everyone who holds bitcoin will get an instant stash of Bitcoin Cash today. Some leading bitcoin-storage services have said they won’t recognize the new currency, forcing people to move their business if they want to claim the new variety of cryptocoins.

Bitcoin was created by a pseudonymous coder (or coders) known as Satoshi Nakamoto, who released the software that powers the currency in 2009. It relies on a network of computers linked over the internet that collaborate to process and record all transactions in a digital ledger called the blockchain. Computers dubbed “miners” keep the ledger updated by adding to the sequence of “blocks” that make up the blockchain as new transactions take place. Proponents say this system creates a trustworthy currency free from political oversight and capable of faster, cheaper digital transactions than possible with conventional currencies.

Acrimony among bitcoiners stems from disagreement about limits on the blockchain’s capacity baked into Nakamoto’s design, and what to do about them. The bitcoin network can only support around seven transactions per second, compared with thousands per second piped through conventional financial networks such as Visa.

Bitcoin Cash is a variation on bitcoin’s design, incorporating much bigger blocks, allowing for more transactions in a given time. Supporters say their project is necessary because planned changes that could expand bitcoin’s capacity are not sufficient. “At this point, it seems that the differences are irreconcilable and a split is unavoidable,” says Amaury Séchet, an ex-Facebook engineer who has developed code to implement Bitcoin Cash.

Owners of pre-split bitcoin will be recorded as owning cryptocoins on both blockchains. Some bitcoin exchanges—where owners transact and store cryptocurrency—have said that they will support the new currency and credit customer accounts with Bitcoin Cash when it appears. But others will not.

Bitcoin Cash’s value, and its effect on cryptocurrency’s place in the world, will be determined by how many investors and users switch from traditional bitcoin. Late Monday, one futures market pegged the value of a unit of Bitcoin Cash at about $300, roughly 1/10 the value of one Bitcoin.

The Bitcoin Cash adjustment to Nakamoto’s original creation does help address the currency’s capacity problem, says Emin Gün Sirer, an associate professor at Cornell who has studied bitcoin’s design. “The science to the extent we’ve measured it aligns with their reasoning,” he says. More important, and trickier, is whether enough people will use and invest in Bitcoin Cash to keep it going. “The crucial part is the amount of economic interest in this new currency,” Sirer says.

Support by bitcoin exchanges will enable use of Bitcoin Cash. Crucially, that could motivate more miners to put their computing power to work on maintaining Bitcoin Cash’s new blockchain, making it more reliable and stable, Sirer says. Miners are incentivized with new bitcoins for their work, and if Bitcoin Cash looks healthy, earning some early could strike miners as a good bet.

Would success for Bitcoin Cash come at the expense of the original bitcoin’s ideals? It depends on whom you ask.

Defenders of the original design say too sharp an increase in capacity could raise the computer hardware requirements for contributing to the blockchain too much, opening the door to centralizing control in the hands of a few dominant players. Séchet argues he’s fighting for the soul of bitcoin, and Bitcoin Cash will force the cryptocurrency community to take scalability more seriously, even if the project fails. “Either bitcoin does not scale and Bitcoin Cash will overtake it over time, or it will scale because of the pressure created by Bitcoin Cash,” Séchet says. “Either is a win for bitcoin users.”

Some trying to build businesses on top of bitcoin are becoming frustrated by the ongoing arguments. “It really has dragged on,” says Morehead of Pantera Capital. Nobody ever said that upending the financial system would be easy.

Adopted from original article

The blockchain concept is still widely misunderstood.

Blockchain technology is making headlines everywhere. If you have recently attended any tech events it is highly likely that you came out of them having heard just that bit more about it. Everybody is talking about blockchain–from the President of the United States to the Nigerian government. Despite all the hype, for many people (across different industries) the blockchain concept still seems difficult to grasp, which makes it one of the most misunderstood technologies of 2017. This confusion around blockchain can be attributed both to its contentious origin (Satoshi Nakamoto, the “unknown” who designed Bitcoin and its original reference implementation) and equally to the absence of any standard definition of blockchain technology. Nevertheless, the perceived (if not yet fully understood) disruptive nature of blockchain and its possible impact on businesses across industries makes it crucial first to understand blockchain and then to distinguish the hype from the reality. Today we are going to try to unpack blockchain at a basic level and understand its implications for the healthcare industry.

What is blockchain technology, and how can we separate the hype from reality?

So what is blockchain? If we filter out all the hype and technological jargon, blockchain technology is, at its simplest, a distributed and immutable (write once and read only) record of digital events that is shared peer to peer between different parties (networked database systems). In essence, the fundamental strengths of a blockchain system lie in its data integrity and networked immutability. Having said this, there is always scope to build application layers on top of a blockchain system and enable additional functionalities such as public or private keys, or self-executing mechanics (e.g. smart contracts), but this isn’t the core functionality of blockchain technology.

To put it even more simply, let’s flash back to the 1990s, when “internet” was the buzzword. People misunderstood the internet with a tunnel vision around its early use cases (e.g. internet = email, or internet = Web). Similarly, today’s confusion around blockchain technology is not because of its fundamental properties at the protocol layer, but rather because of hype around as-yet-unproven use cases at the application level, which are often mistaken for the integral part of core blockchain technology. For example, today many people commonly identify blockchain with Bitcoin, by far the most commonly known implementation of blockchain technology. But in fact Bitcoin is only the tip of the iceberg of several hundred applications using the blockchain system today.

Translating this analogy for the healthcare industry, the concept of blockchain technology and systems is undoubtedly disruptive, but it will not act as a magic bullet to solve emerging business problems in the fast-changing and highly interconnected digital health ecosystem. Rather, it will be an evolutionary journey for blockchain-based healthcare systems or applications, where trust and governance within a blockchain network or consortium will be the critical success factors for implementation.

Blockchain TechnologyCredit: www.healthit.gov; Frost & Sullivan Blockchain technology

What are the most promising blockchain-based use cases for the healthcare industry?

Beyond blockchain technology’s utopian moment in the fintech industry, in the healthcare industry it has just started to inspire both relatively easily achievable and more speculative potential applications. Healthcare authorities, governments and the provider community globally are equally excited about the new possibilities presented by blockchain. Nevertheless, the industry needs to focus on establishing blockchain consortia to foster ecosystem partnerships and create standards or frameworks for future implementation on a large scale across healthcare use cases. The Hyperledger Foundation, an open-source global collaborative effort created to advance cross-industry blockchain technologies, is one great example among many developing small blockchain consortia models in the healthcare space.

Despite the current euphoria, we need to understand and decode the hype cycle for blockchain technology and its realistic healthcare applications. By doing so, we believe that, among several hundred use cases, the five blockchain-based healthcare use cases mentioned below demonstrate more convincing opportunities, albeit at varying degrees of adoption across countries and health systems.

  • Clinical Health Data Exchange and Interoperability: When we talk about blockchain and healthcare, data exchange is typically the first topic to come up. Blockchain-enabled health IT systems that can provide technological solutions to many challenges, including health data interoperability, integrity and security, portable user-owned data and other areas. Most fundamentally, blockchain could enable data exchange systems that are cryptographically secured and irrevocable. This would enable seamless access to historic and real-time patient data, while eliminating the burden and cost of data reconciliation. The recent collaboration between Guardtime, the data-centric security company, and the Estonian eHealth Foundation to secure the health records of one million Estonian citizens using its proprietary Keyless Signature Infrastructure (KSI) is a classic example of blockchain technology. However, considering the complexities around data ownership and governance structure for health data exchange between public and private entities, it would be difficult to replicate the Estonian blockchain-secured health records model globally.
  • Claims Adjudication and Billing Management: An estimated 5-10% of healthcare costs are fraudulent, resulting from excessive billing or billing for non-performed services. For example, in the United States alone, Medicare fraud caused around $30 million in losses in 2016. Blockchain-based systems can provide realistic solutions for minimizing these medical billing-related frauds. By automating the majority of claim adjudication and payment processing activities, blockchain systems could help to eliminate the need for intermediaries and reduce the administrative costs and time for providers and payers. Blockchain could also have significant ramifications for improving some of the huge logistical information tracking hurdles of reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) functions. Recently, Gem Health, a provider of blockchain application platforms for enterprises, has collaborated with Capital One to develop blockchain-based healthcare claims management solutions.
  • Drug Supply Chain Integrity and Provenance: Based on industry estimates, pharmaceutical companies incur an estimated annual loss of $200 billion due to counterfeit drugs globally. About 30% of drugs sold in developing countries are considered to be counterfeits. A blockchain-based system could ensure a chain-of-custody log, tracking each step of the supply chain at the individual drug/product level. Furthermore, add-on functionalities such as private keys and smart contracts could help build in proof of ownership of the drug source at any point in the supply chain and manage the contracts between different parties. For example, a company called iSolve LCC is currently working with multiple pharma/biopharma companies to implement its Advanced Digital Ledger Technology (ADLT) blockchain solutions to help manage drug supply chain integrity.
  • Pharma Clinical Trials and Population Health Research: It is estimated that 50% of clinical trials go unreported, and investigators often fail to share their study results (e.g. nearly 90% of trials on ClinicalTrials.gov lack results). This creates crucial safety issues for patients and knowledge gaps for healthcare stakeholders and health policymakers. Blockchain-enabled, time-stamped immutable records of clinical trials, protocols and results could potentially address the issues of outcome switching, data snooping and selective reporting, thereby reducing the incidence of fraud and error in clinical trial records. Further, blockchain-based systems could help drive unprecedented collaboration between participants and researchers around innovation in medical research in fields like precision medicine and population health management.
  • Cyber Security and Healthcare IoT: According to the Protenus Breach Barometer report, there were a total of 450 health data breaches in 2016, affecting over 27 million patients. About 43% of these breaches were insider-caused and 27% due to hacking and ransomware. With the current growth of connected health devices, it will be very challenging for existing Health IT infrastructure and architecture to support the evolving IoMT (Internet of Medical Things) ecosystems. By 2020, an estimated 20-30 billion healthcare IoT connected devices will be used globally. Blockchain-enabled solutions have the potential to bridge the gaps of device data interoperability while ensuring security, privacy and reliability around IoMT use cases. Companies such as Telstra (user biometrics and smart homes), IBM (cognitive Internet of Things) and Tierion (industrial medical device preventive maintenance) are actively working around these use cases.

If you would like more insights on blockchain in the healthcare industry, please connect with us! Email [email protected] and speak to a thought leader in this field.

This article was written with contributions from Kamaljit Behera, Visionary Innovation Industry Analyst in Frost & Sullivan’s Transformational Health Practice.

Adopted from original article