Search for…

 
“I started my entrepreneurial path in 2010 by organizing and curating TEDxCluj. But the community needed something else, so I extended the interaction beyond the conference,” Cristian Dascalu, partner at Romanian Gapminder VC, tells me about his career shift from entrepreneurship to helping build startups, and then investing in them.
At GapMinder VC, Cristian focuses on B2B SaaS, automation, and Fintech, among others, since 2017. So far, he has been the lead investor in Cyscale, Soleadify, Ialoc, Flip, Amsimcel, Synaptic, Rayscape (former Xvision), and MedicAI‘s funding rounds, to name a few.
 
 
Cristian is also the founder of Cluj Hub and the co-founder and managing partner of TechCelerator, a pre-seed and seed accelerator, which is looking to advance AI development and adoption in the region. With both hats on – entrepreneur and investor, we tackle 18 venture capital myths to find out what’s true or false from his experience.
 
 

Cristian Dascalu, Gapminder VC: True. Most investments fail. From some of them, you recuperate the money and just a small percentage will make a profit. The ideology in VC funds is that each investment is treated as one which should return the entire fund. This comes from the exaggerated assumptions that all are going to fail terribly.
At a worldwide level, yes, it’s true. The statistics show that the majority of VC funds are not profitable. But some of them are making huge breakthroughs. The expected returns should be around 2.5x; some will deliver much more, and a big chunk of them will fail and not even return this money.
True, because we are at high risk, and that is why the investments are being done as a portfolio. You look over your portfolio, not only deal by deal.
When you calculate potential returns, you need to consider that you will take big, but calculated, risks as a VC. This comes counterweighted by the fact that you invest in certain industries, which can be disruptive, and many times disruption is not easy to achieve.
So, you need to make your numbers in a way that is possible to have returns from a small portion and be ready to lose on the majority of the other investments. Everybody aware of this game can decrease the risk because if more money will come into this industry, fewer failures will exist by training faster more entrepreneurs in the disruptive game of innovation.
It’s partially true, depending on the object of communication. Entrepreneurship is about dealing with and managing complexity. You need to activate a certain hat or ability and also deactivate it and shift your focus into something, then activate it again, and so on.
It’s a saying that when you launch something, which you are not ashamed of, you will launch too late. So, you need to start talking earlier. But, you should not invest more than 5% in promoting your product. It should be connected to your go-to-market strategy, not vanity metrics.
You have to move from an alpha to a beta product. First, you need to be ready to communicate to potential users that you are present on the market. Then, you need to get back to your product, understand your customers and validate the problem, and prepare your next iteration.
True, although I don’t believe in the work-life balance concept. As a founder, you have to be responsible for the work which is needed. Serial entrepreneurs, professionals with more experience in different fields, could shortcut the work they have to put in, but not those who are developing the first projects.
The startup industry has this “mirage” that offers so many gains to bring you on board. The reality is that 90% of entrepreneurs will not arrive to be successful, but they will become complete professionals for sure.
True, but it’s not only in Eastern Europe, I think it’s about emergent economies everywhere, like South America, Southeast Asia, and Africa. They are the dragons of the tech startup community, ecosystems that could deliver more. I think the AI and deep tech machine learning approaches will help our region a lot because we have mathematics and technology backgrounds.
Even if we have an affordable cost of living, we need to get out of this comfortable shell and keep in mind that we should deliver the requirements needed in the U.S markets. Sometimes, in Eastern Europe, we get in love with our solutions, and we don’t validate big enough global problems to build solutions on top.
Small economies have small problems. We should be looking at the global trends outside to be able to deliver, for example, smart city solutions. Because mayors from more developed countries don’t need a tech startup to deliver a bus app. They already have this in their standard stack inside their city hall.
False. There will be an impact as the entire global fundraising landscape changes in 2022.
In terms of the crises and inflation aspects, I don’t think it’s about the development of the ecosystem in Romania, but about the overall resilience of the region, which is not so directly correlated to the challenges happening at this moment in countries like Germany or other bigger impacted economies.
I don’t think there was ever an issue of capital availability for Romanian founders. It’s like that saying “you will always find the money for a great idea”, it’s about the implementation.
It depends at what stage. True for the later stage, and false for the earlier stage. In the beginning, because you don’t have what financials to show, you should showcase the projected financials because VCs work on the forecasted disruption of your product.
False. We have great examples of women-led companies, even in our portfolio, and the positive ones demonstrate you shouldn’t have that bias. I believe female founders are more focused on sustainability, they are equally hard-working as men, they just need to be seasoned enough with the technology or be backed up by a diverse team of specialists in their fields.
False. I wouldn’t consider it a red flag, because we look at the full team; as for co-CEOs, we haven’t experienced it enough. From my experience, the latter one would be a positive one, it can bring more collaboration in the team.
As investors, we are used to the term “soft majority”, which means that not everybody needs to agree, but nobody should not disagree with a certain target. In this case, it’s OK to move ahead.
I see Co-CEOs divide certain departments, one leads 3-4, and the other coordinates 3-4. Connecting with the question before, the perfect case would be to have one female CEO and one male CEO.
True. Again, it’s all about the team or having the experience on your board of advisors. Being a single founder is a challenge, quite impossible most of the time.
Most of the time, it’s true. But, we have seen cases in the world that proved it’s possible. I wish entrepreneurs could do that because it means that they are growing with the client’s money, which is the “cheapest” money you can get as an investment. But it’s a big goal, you need a good problem to solve with your startup, and to know the customers and validate their needs early on.
False. To become good, you need to specialize and develop a pattern. Every investor has a pattern, they might not look at the industry or vertical, but at the people pattern, a certain type of founder.
Again, in the early stage, this is true because the product is not yet there. For example, Uber didn’t have a product-market fit for around four years, and they got investments due to their vision and team. But, there needs to be a product-thinking mindset as a disclaimer.
False. This is not always the case, it can be due to the product, but it can also mean the company could be very good, but maybe it’s not the right time for the fund as it’s not on their investment thesis.
False. Expectations could be by multiplying the revenue, and the traction, not on the money put into the company. During the early stage, you run the company on the investors’ money, not on the generated revenue, so it’s about the expected impact of that money to be ten times more.
Sort of true, but not exactly how you said it. At this moment, we have an ecosystem, but not a functional one because we need specializations.
We should have players working with startups up until one point, let’s say from A to D, and then pass them to other ecosystem players to help them grow to the next stage. This handing over is missing.
For a startup to achieve greatness, it has to work with more players. As we ask startups to go niche, we have to also promote niches at the startup assistance level. Too many players say they are providing more than they can deliver.
It’s important to experiment, see what you are good at, and then specialize. We have enthusiasm, but next to it, it would be good to have experience. This is one of the reasons why mediocre things come out.
 
 
Every single contribution of yours helps us guarantee our independence and sustainable future. With your financial support, we can keep on providing constructive reporting on the developments in the region, give even more global visibility to our ecosystem, and educate the next generation of innovation journalists and content creators.
Find out more about how your donation could help us shape the story of the SEE entrepreneurial ecosystem!
START HERE
One-time donation
You can also support The Recursive’s mission with a pick-any-amount, one-time donation. 👍
DONATE NOW
By The Recursive
Next on The Recursive podcast, we introduce you to one of the power ladies of […]
By Antoanela Ionita
Today, we meet you with Ioana Alexandra Frincu, the co-founder and COO of the first […]
By Elena Ivanova
Can you guess which is the most developed innovation ecosystem in Southeast Europe which maintains […]
By Catalin Mester
By Diana Dimova
By Nina Braftalean
The Recursive
Address: Sofia 1504, 6 Shipka Str.
For news stories, reach out to: [email protected]
For content marketing partnerships: [email protected]

© 2020 – 2022 – Recurisve Media JSC | All rights reserved Web Development by Vipe Studio – WordPress Agency
AI
Blockchain
Cybersecurity
Dev Tribe
Health
Edtech
Mobility
Gaming
Agritech
Climate Tech
Social Impact
Smart Cities
AI
Blockchain
Cybersecurity
Dev Tribe
Health
Edtech
Mobility
Gaming
Agritech
Climate Tech
Social Impact
Smart Cities

source