>>27574072Without regurgitating an entire book on venture deals, not entirely? If the thread is still here in about an hour I'll elaborate on some of it if you have specific questions?
The TL;DR of what I was saying was "I agree they seem to have a super-risky core idea, but I want to be humble/honest and admit the factors that I do not know. Those unknown factors might offset that risk." And the unknown factors are:
1. It is not an industry I do not have instincts or expertise in, so I do not trust my surface-level thoughts on the risk.
2. The investors might be in a "phase of their fund", e.g. how much money have deployed or made back, where super high risks are acceptable.
3. There are often details to an investment beyond "I give you money, I get shares," known as "terms of control", the simplest example being a board seat. Contrary to popular belief, not every investor gets to sit on the board of every company they invest in, normally only the "lead" investor (or representative thereof) out of potentially many. If the executives of a company have enough leverage, they might not have to give ANY investor a board seat.
