Month: March 2021

One of the biggest pain points for startups and small businesses is keeping up with back office tasks such as bookkeeping and managing taxes.

QuickBooks, it seems, just doesn’t always cut it.

Three-time co-founders Waseem Daher, Jeff Arnold, and Jessica McKellar formed Pilot with the mission of affordably providing back office services to startups and SMBs. With over 1,000 customers, it has gained serious traction over the years. And Pilot has now also received validation from some big-name investors. On Friday, the company announced a $100 million Series C that doubles the company’s valuation to $1.2 billion.

Bezos Expeditions — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ personal investment fund — and Whale Rock Capital (a $10 billion hedge fund) co-led the round, which also included participation from Sequoia Capital, Index Ventures, Authentic Ventures and others. 

Stripe and Index Ventures co-led Pilot’s $40 million Series B in April 2019. The latest financing brings the company’s total funding raised to over $158 million since its 2017 inception.

The founding team certainly has an impressive track record, having founded and sold two previous companies: Ksplice  (to Oracle) and Zupli (to Dropbox).

Pilot’s pitch is about more than just software. The company combines its software with accountants to do things such as provide “CFO Services” to SMBs without a full-stack finance team. It also provides monthly variance analysis for all its bookkeeping customers, essentially serving as a controller for those companies, so they can make better budgeting and spending decisions.

It also helps companies access small business tax credits they may not have otherwise known about. 

Last year, Pilot completed more than $3 billion in bookkeeping transactions for its customers, which range from pre-revenue startups to larger companies with more than $30M of revenue a year. Customers include Bolt, r2c and Pathrise, among others.

Pilot has also inked a number of co-marketing partnerships with companies such as American Express, Bill.com, Brex, Carta, Gusto, Rippling, Stripe, SVB, and Techstars.

Ironically, Pilot says it aspires to the “AWS of SMB backoffice.” (In fact, co-founder Waseem Daher started his career as an intern at Amazon). Put simply, Pilot wants to take care of all those back office tasks so companies can focus more on growth and winning business.

Pilot strives to offer an “exceptional customer experience,” which is reflected in the fact that over 80% of the company’s business is driven by customer referrals and organic interest, according to Daher.

Whale Rock Partner Kristov Paulus said that white-glove customer service experience and Pilot’s “carefully-engineered” software make a powerful combination.

“We look forward to supporting Pilot in their vision to make back office services as easy-to-use, scalable, and ubiquitous as AWS has with the cloud,” he said.

Pilot’s model reminds me a lot of that of ScaleFactor’s, an Austin-based startup that raised $100 million in a year before it crashed and burned. But the difference in this case is that Pilot seems to have satisfied customers.

Source: Tech Crunch

Mayfield partner Navin Chaddha and Poshmark founder and CEO Manish Chandra met all the way back in 2003, well before Poshmark was even a glimmer in his eye. They stayed connected over the years, through Chandra’s sale of his startup Kaboodle to Hearst and after he left.

At a breakfast one morning, Chandra told Chaddha he was going to try to do everything from his iPhone for the next six months.

Over the course of that time, the idea for Poshmark started to percolate into something more concrete. Chandra, following Kaboodle, knew he wanted to do several things differently. The first was create an engagement and revenue model that was symbiotic, rather than starting with engagement and having to build out a business model later. He also knew he wanted to start with people first, and build a founding team that had deep DNA in the fashion world to pair with his technical background.

He met Tracy Sun, brought her on, and got to work.

This was back in 2011, and Chandra was absolutely adamant that he wanted Poshmark to be an app, not a website. So adamant, in fact, that during beta he actually provided 100 users with video iPods. (He recalled that he only got 20% of them back.)

“Lead with love, and the money comes.” It’s one of the cornerstone values at Poshmark. The company practiced that early on by holding IRL, and then virtual, parties, allowing users to show each other their wares and create an engagement cycle that offered instant gratification. The user base grew from 100 to 150 to 1,000 and so on.

“We still to this day use a similar kind of strategy in a much more compressed timeframe as we go to different countries,” said Chandra. “We focus on building the community first and then scale that community.”

Chaddha and Mayfield led the company’s Series A deal a decade ago. On the latest episode of Extra Crunch Live, Chandra and Chaddha sat down with us and walked us through that original Series A pitch deck (which you can check out below). They also participated in the Pitch Deck Teardown, giving their expert feedback on decks submitted by the audience. If you’d like your deck to be featured on a future episode of Extra Crunch Live, hit up this link.

Poshmark’s Series A Deck

Time stamp — 11:00

Poshmark was built on a couple fundamental premises. The first was that the iPhone would transform the way we do just about everything. The second was more pointed: That fashion, at the time underserved by technology, was a discovery process over a direct search process. A decade ago, Chandra envisioned a fashion marketplace that mimicked shopping in the real world — walk into a shop and let natural attraction do its thing — without holding any inventory.

Source: Tech Crunch

John Ruffolo isn’t as famous as some investors, but he’s very well-known in Canadian business circles. The longtime head of Arthur Andersen’s tech, media, and telecommunications practice, he joined OMERS roughly a decade ago when a former colleague became CEO and brought him aboard the pension giant to create a venture fund.

The idea was to back the most promising Canadian companies, and Ruffolo steered the unit into investments like the social media management Hootsuite, the recently acquired storytelling platform Wattpad, and the e-commerce platform Shopify, among other deals. The last was particularly meaningful, given that OMERS owned around 6% of the company sailing into a 2015 IPO that valued it at roughly $1.3 billion at the time. Alas, owing to the pension fund’s rules, it also began steadily selling that entire stake, even as Shopify’s valued ticked upward. (Its market cap is currently $130 billion.)

Indeed, after helping OMERS subsequently get a growth equity unit off the ground, an antsy Ruffolo left to launch his own fund. Then came COVID, and as if the pandemic weren’t trying enough, Ruffolo further underwent a harrowing ordeal last September. An avid cyclist, he set out to ride 60 miles one sunny morning on a country road, and was knocked far off his bike by a Mack truck in an accident that shattered most of his bones and left him paralyzed from the waist down.

That kind of one-two punch might drive someone to the brink. Instead, six months and multiple surgeries later, Ruffolo, is undergoing training and therapy and intends to bike someday again. He is also very much back to work and just taking the wraps off his new Toronto-based firm, Maverix Private Equity, which has $500 million to invest in “traditional businesses” that already produce at least $100 million revenue and are using tech to grow but could use an outside investor for the first time to really hit the gas.

We talked with Ruffolo about the accident and his new fund this morning. You can hear that conversation here (it starts around the seven-minute mark, and it’s worth a listen). In the meantime, following are excerpts from that interview, edited lightly for length.

TC: You’re surely tired of answering the question, but how are you doing?

JR: Well, when somebody says it’s great to be alive, it is. I actually never knew how close I was to death, to be honest, until about eight days after the accident. When I asked for my phone, just to kind of see what’s going on in the world, there was thousands of messages coming through. And I’m like, ‘What the hell?’

People were copying various articles. I picked off the first one, and it said, ‘John suffered a life threatening injury.’ And I’m kind of thinking, ‘Life threatening? Why are they saying that? And the doctors came in and said, ‘Because it was. We thought that you were going to die in the first 48 hours.’ I subsequently spoke to some of the top physicians [in Canada], and they don’t understand why I didn’t die on impact. That kind of scared me a little bit, but I’m so glad to be alive. And my recovery is far ahead of schedule. It was only within a couple of weeks where I started feeling my legs again.

TC: You were basically pulverized, yet a recent piece about your recovery in The Globe & Mail notes that within a month or so, you were back to thinking about your new fund. Do you think you might be . . . a workaholic?

JR: Some people call it stupid. [Laughs.] For the two months, my first memory was worrying about my family and stuff [but] I have group of cycling friends — we’re called Les Domestiques — who have committed to cycling, and it’s a lot of folks who are investors, CEOs of big banks in Canada, we’re all close friends, [and] they all came to cocoon the family to make sure that nothing went wrong.

So very quickly, all of these folks take over every element of the family, and the kids were fine, everybody was fine. I then had a lot of time in the hospital, and I do get antsy, and I started placing the calls to the investors who were committing to this fund pre COVID . . . I just really wanted to tell them, ‘Hey, I’m not dead. All my faculties are there. Are you still gonna be there when I get out of hospital?’

TC: Because they’re really investing in you and your track record.

JR: That’s exactly right. And I gotta tell you, it’s an interesting comparison. I’ve had American investors, and Canadian investors. American investors are very transactional. They’re very fast to come in if they see a great value proposition. Canada is not the same thing. In Canada, I’m extremely well-known as an investor and there, it’s actually relationship-driven, which is both good and bad. It’s tough in Canada because they’re more conservative, however, they stick with you in bad times. In my case, every single investor, everyone that had committed on pre- COVID, came in. Then one in particular doubled the size of the investment. They just felt bad for me, and I was like, ‘Hey, dude, I will take that sympathy card. Anytime.’

TC: You also see a real market for a Canadian-led firm to invest in Canadian companies versus taking money from American counterparts.

JR: So now this is going a little bit to the thesis, which is not a new thesis from a US perspective but is new from a Canadian perspective: the great firms in the U.S., like an Insight [Partners], like a Madison Dearborn, Bain Capital, General Atlantic, Summit — we don’t have any of those in Canada. We have great venture capital firms, and we have great buyout private equity firms. But what was really happening here is the entrepreneurs who are building great businesses are not really tech entrepreneurs; they’re just traditional industry entrepreneurs. And really, all I’m doing is planting a Canadian flag and saying, Hey, we have a Canadian firm that will lead or highly participate in these deals [to help you scale that business].

TC: You’re drawing a distinction between old-line industries and growth-stage tech companies, in other words, and you’re going after the former?

JR: [To me] a true technology company is one that actually builds the tool sets that are used by other businesses to make them bigger, faster, and stronger and I’ve been investing in those companies for 10 years with great success, but there’s a massive oversupply of capital in those spaces, particularly in the SaaS software space. It’s just not making mathematical sense on when it comes to a lot of these valuations. Meanwhile, when it comes to financial services, health care, travel, whatever, these are not tech entrepreneurs but they’re enlightened. We’re not introducing technology into the business, they already have it. But in one case, with a travel company we’re looking at closely, they want somebody who understands the travel space and also who understands technology and the impact as you scale globally.

The profile of the companies that I’m talking about have, on average, $100 million dollars of top line [growth], with flattish EBITDA, and that haven’t done any external financing with institutions. They’re growing at 20% to 50% a year, but they really want to become the next billion-dollar company.

TC: How much of these companies do you think you can own and for what size checks?

JR: We’re looking at 20% to 40% stakes in the business, so I’d say a significant minority, and we’re cutting checks of $50 to $75 million (U.S.)

TC: There aren’t a lot of massive companies in Canada, Shopify notwithstanding. How do you get the companies you plan to work with thinking on a different scale?

JR: Canadians might be a little bit more conservative, but the irony is, take a survey and [you’ll see] how many Canadians are running huge firms in the United States or in the Valley. It’s not inherent in Canadians [that they are risk averse].

Part of why I got into venture capital was I was so frustrated in the number of companies that were building products but couldn’t even generate revenues. Since then, I think we solved in Canada the zero to $10 million problem, then the $10 million to $100 million [challenge]. But starting around 2016 or so, I started to see companies that had $50 million, $60 million, $70 million in revenue starting to plateau, and the issue was global scalability.

In the U.S., so many companies can be a domestic company  and be a billion-dollar company. In Canada, our market is too small; you’re forced to sell on a global scale, and many Canadian companies struggle with that. So my focus now is that last part of the piece. How do we get these companies from $100 million businesses into $1 billion-plus?

Source: Tech Crunch

“Headless commerce” is a phrase that gets thrown around lot (I’ve typed it several times today already), but Vue Storefront CEO Patrick Friday has an especially vivid way of using the concept to illustrate his startup’s place in the broader ecosystem.

“Vue Storefront is the bodiless front-end,” Friday said. “We are the walking head.”

In other words, while most headless commerce companies are focused on creating back-end infrastructure, Vue powers the front-end, namely the progressive web applications that consumers actually interact with. The company describes itself as “the lightning-fast frontend platform for headless commerce.”

Friday said that he and CTO Filip Rakowski created the Vue Storefront technology as an open source project while working at e-commerce agency Divante, before eventually spinning it out into a separate startup last year. The company was also part of the most recent class at accelerator Y Combinator, and it recently raised $1.5 million in seed funding led by SMOK Ventures and Movens VC.

“We had to set up a new entity in the middle of COVID, we had to raise in middle of COVID and we had to convince the agency get rid of the product in the middle of COVID,” Friday said. He even recalled signing papers with an investor one morning in early December and doing an interview with Y Combinator that evening.

Image Credits: Vue Storefront

As they’ve built a business around the core open source technology, Friday and his team have realized that Vue has more to offer than just building web apps, because it connects e-commerce platforms like Magento and Shopify with headless content management systems like Contentstack and Contentful, payments systems like PayPal and Stripe and other third-party services.

In fact, Friday said customers have been telling them, “You are like the glue. Headless was so complex to me, and then I got this Vue Storefront thing to come in on top everything else and be the glue connecting things.”

The platform has been used to create more than 300 stores worldwide. Friday said adoption has accelerated as the pandemic and resulting growth in e-commerce have driven businesses to realize they’re using “this legacy platform, using outdated frameworks and technologies from a good four or five years ago.”

Rakowski added, “We also see that many customers actually come to us deciding that Vue Storefront can be the first step of migration to another platform. WE can quickly migrate the front-end and write back-end agnostic code.”

Because it had just raised funding, the Vue Storefront team did not participant in the recent YC Demo Day, and will be presenting at the next Demo Day instead. In the meantime, it will be holding its own virtual Vue Storefront Summit on April 20.

Source: Tech Crunch

In October 2019, The New York Times reported that 1.5 million packages were delivered in New York City every single day. Though convenient for customers and profitable for the Amazons of the world, getting so many boxes from warehouse to customer generates considerable negative externalities for cities.

As the Times put it, “The push for convenience is having a stark impact on gridlock, roadway safety, and pollution in New York City and urban areas around the world.”

Since that article was published, the global pandemic has taken e-commerce to new heights, and experts don’t expect this upward trend to slow down anytime soon. Without strategic intervention, we will find our cities facing increasingly severe traffic problems, safety issues and polluting emissions.

The same frustrations have plagued urban roadways for decades. However, technology is finally catching up, providing new means of addressing the challenges of crowding, pollution and parking enforcement on dense city streets.

As is almost always the case, an effective solution begins by first understanding the detailed circumstances giving rise to the problem. In this case, a simple means of assessing the problem is to observe curbside parking and street traffic using streetlight cameras.

Deploying cameras to monitor public spaces may immediately incite the ire of die-hard privacy advocates (I consider myself among them), which is why companies like mine have taken a privacy-by-design approach to product development. Our technology processes video in real time and addresses further concerns about potential misuse for surveillance purposes by blurring faces and license plates beyond recognition prior to making any kind of image data available either internally or to public officials.

The point of these cameras is not to surveil but rather to leverage concrete data from real-world city streets to generate crucial insights and power automations at the curb. Automotus’ computer vision software is already using this model to help cities manage the aforementioned flood of commercial vehicles on their streets.

This technology can also be used to optimize and incentivize parking turnover. According to one study, drivers in New York City spend an average of 107 hours per year searching for parking spots, at a cost of $2,243 per driver in wasted time, fuel and emissions, which represents $4.3 billion in total costs to the city. Similar wasteful dynamics are unfolding across America and the world. By collecting comprehensive data around the demand for curbside space, cities can design parking policies that ensure proper alignment between the supply of curb space and the way vehicles are actually using it.

In one pilot we ran on the campus of Loyola Marymount University, traffic caused by drivers searching for parking dropped by more than 20% after our data was used to adjust parking policy. Using data to optimize parking results in more efficient turnover, less time spent circling for a spot and reduced traffic delays. Real-time parking availability data can also be used to direct drivers to open parking spots via an application or API.

By arming city planners with accurate, up-to-date information on all forms of curbside activity, we empower them to fully understand the temporal and spatial patterns that rule their curbs. This gives planners the information they need to make informed decisions about curbside policy tailored to their city’s peculiarities.

Suddenly, questions such as “How many ride-hailing drop-offs occur here?” and “Whose delivery trucks are double parking on Tuesday morning?” become trivial to answer. Gone are the days of using vague heuristics to guide policy; this new wealth of information makes possible precise and impactful decisions on the locations of passenger parking, dedicated delivery zones and ride-hailing areas, as well as optimal rates to charge for parking, appropriate penalties for violations and much more.

This tech is also a win for delivery companies. When delivery fleets have data about real-time and predicted parking availability, this can improve route efficiency, saving them money. Instead of paying for curb usage via fines, delivery companies can instead receive an invoice for their time spent at the curb (a tax-deductible expense, I might add).

A study done in Columbus, Ohio, found that designated loading zones decreased double parking violations by 50% and reduced commercial vehicle time at the curb by 28%. Radically increasing the efficiency of delivery translates into savings for companies like FedEx and Amazon, which can then afford to pay fair rates for their curb access and pass on those savings to consumers.

Several interrelated trends make the current moment an especially opportune time to apply new technology to our streets and curbs. Pre-pandemic, many cities already faced declining revenue from parking as citizens shifted toward using ride-shares. Now, thousands of American municipalities are expecting major budget shortfalls in the wake of COVID-19. At the same time, a report from the World Economic Forum predicts that the number of commercial delivery vehicles will increase by 36% in inner cities by the year 2030. Our research suggests that more than 50% of parking violations are unenforced and committed by commercial vehicles.

It’s no coincidence that Columbus was the winner of the 2016 federal Smart City Challenge. When former President Barack Obama pledged over $160 million as part of his “Smart Cities” initiative in 2015, reducing congestion and pollution were among the program’s major goals. Better management of parking and curb space are crucial tools for achieving these aims. Though former President Donald Trump campaigned on a massive infrastructure plan, his delivery on promises in this area were mixed at best. Despite the lack of federal support, there are currently promising initiatives underway in cities such as Santa Monica, which is piloting a zero-emissions delivery zone in the heart of its downtown.

President Joe Biden has outlined a plan to build the infrastructure America needs both to combat climate change and modernize urban transportation. This plan includes a provision for 500,000 public charging stations for electric vehicles; changes to our cities that allow drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and others to safely share the road; and investment in critical clean energy solutions.

Curb management technology is one of a suite of options on the market that federal and local governments can leverage to reduce pollution and improve quality of life in cities. If the incoming administration is willing to champion this novel approach toward solving the problems of urban mobility, America’s infrastructure will not just be modernized but made ready for the future.

I, for one, hope this renewal is realized; our nation’s health, safety and shared prosperity depend on it.

Source: Tech Crunch

This year is all about the roll-ups. No, not those fruity snacks you used to find in your lunchbox; roll-ups are the aggregation of smaller companies into larger firms, creating a potentially compelling path for equity value.

Right now, all eyes are on Thrasio, the fastest company to reach unicorn status, and its cadre of competitors, such as Heyday, Branded and Perch, all vying to become the modern model of consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies.

Making things even more interesting, famed investor and operator Keith Rabois recently announced that he too is working on a roll-up concept called OpenStore with Atomic co-founder Jack Abraham.

Thrasio has been reaping the benefits of the e-commerce market’s Cambrian explosion in 2020, in which over $1 billion of capital was invested in firms on a mission to acquire independent Amazon sellers and brands.

This catalyst can be attributed to a few key factors, the first and most notable being the pandemic accelerating spending on Amazon and e-commerce more broadly. Next is the low cost of capital, a reflection of interest rates making markets flush with cash; this has made it easier to raise both equity and debt capital.

The third is the emerging and quantifiable proofs of concept: Thrasio is one of several raising hundreds of millions of dollars, and Anker, a primarily Amazon-native brand, went public. Both stories have provided further validation that a meaningful brand can be built on top of Amazon’s marketplace.

Still, the interest in creating value through e-commerce brands is particularly striking. Just a year ago, digitally native brands had fallen out of favor with venture capitalists after so many failed to create venture-scale returns. So what’s the roll-up hype about?

Roll-ups are another flavor of investing

Roll-ups aren’t a new concept; they’ve existed for a while. In the offline world, roll-ups often achieve much greater exit multiples, known as “multiple arbitrage,” so it’s no surprise that the trend is making its way online.

Historically, though, roll-ups haven’t been all that successful; HBR notes that more than two-thirds of roll-ups fail to create value for investors. While roll-ups are often effective at building larger companies, they don’t always increase profits or operating cash flows.

Acquirers, i.e., those rolling up smaller companies, need to uncover new operating approaches for their acquired companies to increase equity value, and the only way to increase equity value is to increase operating cash flow. There are four ways to do this: reducing overhead costs, reducing operating costs without sacrificing price or volume, increasing pricing without sacrificing volume or increasing volume without increasing unit costs.

E-commerce could present a new and different opportunity, or at least that’s what investors and smart money are betting on. Let’s explore how this new wave of roll-ups is approaching both growth and value creation.

Channel your enthusiasm: Why every roll-up needs a thesis

Like any investment firm, to be successful, a roll-up should have a thesis or two providing it with a cohesive strategy across its portfolio. There are a few that are trending in this particular wave.

The first is the primary distribution channel upon which a company grows. Evaluating companies with a common distribution channel can be helpful for creating economies of scale, focusing marketing and growth resources in a specific channel versus diluting resources across several.

On the downside, these companies become reliant on this distribution strategy and any changes could create vulnerabilities for their portfolio companies. As a study, let’s take a look at how two companies take different approaches:

Source: Tech Crunch

With Roblox’s massive IPO this month, game developers, brands and investors alike are wondering what factors cause the most successful games on this $47 billion platform to break out from the millions of user-generated passion projects.

According to Roblox’s S-1 filing, nearly 250 developers and creators earned $100,000 or more in Robux in the year through September 2020 out of nearly 1 million creators on the platform.

From Gamefam’s first game two years ago that topped out at only 25 concurrent players to our current portfolio with 2 million to 3 million daily visits, our team learned to develop on Roblox the hard way — by trial and error and by getting better at listening to the Roblox community’s unique gamer culture and vernacular.

For those entrepreneurs just starting their journey in Roblox game development, these are the most common mistakes I have seen gaming professionals (myself included) make on Roblox:

1. Using the established free-to-play (F2P) mobile game mechanics

In the F2P mobile games market, it’s all about layered game loops: play a match with the hero, level the hero up using resources from the match, buy more heroes to merge with the first hero, open up new matches with new rules to win more resources, and on and on. These require ongoing player tutorials across hours of play sessions. These mechanics tend to backfire on Roblox because players have no tolerance for anything but immediate, visceral fun.

Accordingly, in mobile F2P, a robust tutorial for new users is oftentimes one of the biggest investments during development. But in our Roblox game Speed Run Simulator (more than 400,000 daily visits), we saw a significant increase in D1 retention when we removed the tutorial entirely and just allowed existing players to guide new players’ understanding of the game. The differences between Roblox and mobile F2P are not only numerous but also sometimes profoundly counterintuitive.

2. Optimizing to make money off of “whales”

Roblox players spend because they’re getting something they want. They won’t be cajoled or coerced into spending like in a mobile game where progress is restricted or slowed without making an in-app purchase (think Candy Crush).

Source: Tech Crunch

Matt Salzberg, who co-founded and served as CEO of meal kit startup Blue Apron until 2017, is back in the startup business with a new venture studio called Material.

Along with Salzberg, Material is led by partners Andy Salamon (formerly a general partner at Atomic Labs who backed Hims and Terminal) and Danielle David Parks (co-founder of Jane Strategy). The studio has been operating for the past year and just closed its first $25 million fund.

Salzberg told me that Material will have “a very slow and deliberate approach to company creation.” That means deeply researching an industry (“We do more private equity-style due diligence than venture capital-style diligence”), identifying an opportunity and recruiting an executive to found the company alongside the Material team.

“We act as their co-founders, literally, whether with respect to talent and recruiting or resources at our fund, we help help very much with investor connections, we help with strategy, we help with relationships,” he said. “We let the co-founding CEOs handle the day-to-day decisions and as they bring in outside capital in future rounds, we transition into being more like board members.”

Salzberg added that his goal “isn’t to be a factory that churns out five companies a year, six or seven companies a year,” he said. And instead of being slightly involved in a lot of companies,”We like to have a lot to do with very few companies.”

Specifically, the Material team plans to launch two new startups every year. For the most part, Salzberg said the ideas for these companies will “almost always” originate within Material, because the goal is to start the companies “from scratch” rather than make seed investments. He admitted that this approach allows him to “derive personal satisfaction” from the process, but he argued that it’s financially sound as well.

“It’s also the right investment strategy to create great risk-adjusted returns,” he said. “We de-risk the startup process with better vetted ideas, more experienced founders and we’re giving them a good amount of capital, $2 to $4 million, from day one.”

Startups launched from Material include delivery-focused restaurant startup Kitchen to Kitchen (led by former FreshDirect CEO Dean Furbish), an Amazon brand acquirer called Suma Brands (led by former Dolls Kill COO Andrew Savage) and sales startup that’s still in stealth mode.

New Material startups could be in any industry, but Salzberg said the team is particularly interested in e-commerce (not too surprising, given his background and Salamon’s) and the future of work.

Source: Tech Crunch

It might seem like everyone and their mom is selling a non-fungible token (NFT) these days, but Pussy Riot co-founder Nadya Tolokonnikova is one of the few strategizing beyond the hype cycle.

“I’ve been using cryptocurrency before this,” Tolokonnikova told TechCrunch, noting Pussy Riot members have been interested in blockchain technology since around 2015. “Masha [Alyokhina, Pussy Riot co-founder] had problems with her bank accounts. Whenever she would open one, the government would shut it down because she would use some of her money for protestors. Right now she can’t even have her own credit card.”

Now Tolokonnikova is raising hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of ether this month by dropping a four-part series of NFTs for the group’s newest music video, “Panic Attack.” She says these profits will be donated to a clandestine women’s shelter in Eastern Europe, which caters to women who violated social norms.

“Women in this region are still being treated as property. There’s a stigma. A lot of these women are queer or did something like smile at a stranger, things that are associated with shame on the whole family. If we publicized the location of this shelter, it would motivate people to find the shelter and try to destroy it,” Tolokonnikova said. “As an activist, it’s really exciting to see a tool that’s not controlled by any government.”

It might be easy to dismiss this NFT initiative as a publicity stunt for Pussy Riot’s first studio album, “Rage,” scheduled for release in May. Plus, the NFT platform the group is using, Foundation, could censor the group and make it difficult for buyers to view or trade NFTs. Crypto collectibles, and any corresponding cryptocurrency earnings, are only censorship resistant when held in a creator’s personal wallet, not on a private company’s platform.

On the other hand, Tolokonnikova said her “interest in the technology is long-lasting,” and that she’s already exploring ways to utilize crypto tools to subvert sexist power structures. In addition to donating cryptocurrency to activists, Pussy Riot is also sponsoring an NFT scholarship program to cover the Ethereum transaction fees for feminist artists.

“Right now it’s now only for activists and political art works,” she said. “It’s also about educating the Pussy Riot community … we are looking at ways to make NFTs more accessible at a lower price point.”

Nadya Tolokonnikova of Pussy Riot performs in Birmingham, Alabama. Image Credits: David A. Smith/Getty Images)

In the meantime, the group is working on collaborations with other NFT artists like Viktoria Modesta, known for avant-garde fashions for people with disabilities. From Tolokonnikova’s perspective, NFTs offer a way for women artists to gain recognition from the traditional art world. She said that because Pussy Riot focused on performance art and digital art, traditional galleries and collectors rarely took her work seriously. Now, with crypto collectibles, museums and galleries are taking note.

“That is a game-changing dynamic for so many artists who, for the first time in their careers, will be recognized as artists,” Tolokonnikova said. “Before, as part of Pussy Riot, I would use speaking fees or other types of event fees and use that to fund the performance art. I was never paid for the art directly. Now I’m focused on these NFT drops and I’m treating it really seriously.”

While many of the NFT boom’s breakaway stars are white men with traditional credentials and years of professional experience, like Beeple and Trevor Jones, women like Tolokonnikova are a fast-growing segment of the crypto ecosystem. Crypto exchange surveys show women make up roughly 15% to 50% percent of tallied users, depending on the region. Organizations like Metapurse, She256 and Meta Gamma Delta offer some mentorship and funding opportunities for women, as well.

“Metapurse is already doing some of this work, but we want to make our own tiny steps to bring more female and queer artists in the space,” Tolokonnikova concluded. “I think it provides amazing tools for the business of the creators’ market. It’s more than just for art. It enhances a creator’s power.”

Source: Tech Crunch