初日のワークショップはＶＣ ２．０というセッションに参加。
VC 2.0の概要は VC 2.0: An Entrepreneur's Market? をご覧ください。
Participants:
Fred Wilson, Union
Square Ventures
Paul Graham,
Partner, Y Combinator
Steve Jurvetson,
Managing Director, Draper Fisher Jurvetson
Ross Mayfield,
CEO, Social Text
Ross Mayfield のブログはこちら
議事録のようなブログがありますのでご紹介します。
（Web 2.0 Conference - VC 2.0 - An Entrepreneur's market から引用）
I'm sitting on this panel because it really does seem like there's a new buzz going around...
Steve - enterpreneurs are in the drivers seat now. We are out of the doom and gloom period. We are Into the period of hope, optimism and greed.
Fred - cost of building consumer internet apps has dropped. This is an opportunity here.
Ross - The best time to start is in a bust. Started company with $5k. Put in 6 months worth of sweat equity. Iterated with customers quickly. Had to make the effort to make sure that things . Took a $150k round from social networking folks like Mark Pincus. Took 600k total.
Fred - is there a business for VCs anymore with the dropping costs
Paul - Yes you can start a company on a lot less money than you could before. You seem smart, you have a reasonable idea we'll try it out. Willing to make bets around 10k range. Living expenses of grad students. If you have low living expenses you have a huge advantage.
Fred - do traditional VCs go later?
Steve - there are different things going on now. Model in web services lowers the costs of partnerships. Things are much more flexible than before. Sales model is very different. Software is bought not sold. Easier than ever to get products to market Angels having a heyday.
Ross - Web 2.0 is not webservices. Web 2.0 is buliding the social infrastructure. Cultural shift happening among net generation.
Fred - What's really new here?
Ross - Always have a bottom up start demand pattern. Too expensive to sell to the CIO first.
Fred - Is there anything special about Web 2.0 that changes your investing?
Paul - I've never believed the Web 2.0 definiton. Ended up investing all in consumer web applicatoins because that's what we understand and is hot. Corrupt relationship in Enterprise sales now. Do the endrun. Consultants can sell/install stuff at ridiculous prices. IT departments are ripe for the killing.
Fred - (to Paul) - you are making small capital bets you could make a lot of bets. There's a space between Angels and traditional VCs. Money corrupts.
Ross - Enterprise software companies used to cost $40M to be fully capitalized. $4M today.
Fred - Is Open Source a central aspect of what is happening?
Ross - Yes. There's a cultural choice about what tools to use.
Fred & Steve - both talked about how if there's open source in a company then MSFT and Oracle won't acquire it. IBM Will
Question - I asked, how does Web 2.0 change the VC equation? Are you looking for different things? Are you willing to make smaller bets?
Paul - I only make small investments.
Fred - Avg investment < $2M. How do we manage such small bets? No great answer to that. Ultimately looking for people but can't
Steve - Yes. Engage network effects. Self re-inforcing. Need the community to participate.
Fred - Problem with the IPO is that there's a huge growth after the IPO. As a VC there's not really a difference in sale vs. IPO.Question - Does taking VC mean that my users will revolt?
Ross - it's a community management issue. You need to set up the social contract with the community.Question - If I don't need the money should I take it for endorsement?
Fred - You should never take the money don't take the money.Google took it because they had to. Endoresement value is worthless. Only two things that matter . Cash + people who will help you and not hurt you.Question - Why are the VCs important at all? Justify your role.
Paul - The connections matter. They open the door for you. Board member contacts are valuable.Question - What's the value of technology vs. community?
Steve - We value community more than technology. Some industries are different like Pharma.Question - Many entrepreneurs are saying I don't want money or much smaller amounts of money. Maybe 10-20% get early stage funding. Not enough angels around to feed the need. Almost seems like there needs to be an incubator fund.
Paul - That's exactly what I do. You need something mroe organized than angels.
Ross - Maybe VCs can invest individually instead of in a large fund.
Fred - It's been done. 3 VCs came in and started a small venture fund.（Web 2.0: VC2 2.0 Panel から引用）
The panel then talks about how Web 2.0 has changed VC investment strategies, and the amount of capital invested. Paul Graham states that he looks at the tools used by the prospective investment (Ruby vs. Java, etc.) – which is a very strange statement to be honest – basically use the most appropriate, efficient and scalable toolset. Fred reckons that they will tend to invest smaller amounts because of reduced capital requirements. For Ross, Web 1.0 was about Commerce, Web 2.0 is about people and the fact that these new tools are putting them back in the driving seat. For Steve, Web 2.0 and Open source drive huge economies of scale thanks to network effects: he mentions SugarCRM and the fact they now support over 20 languages thanks to the community (which is after one year more than Salesforce.com in 8 years).
Q: Exit is M&A and not IPO, because of the limited appetite of the public market and Sarbanes Oxley issues
A: Steve makes the point that IPOs will only make sense for the top winners in VC portfolios, where returns will be spectacular. It should be targeted as a goal, being open to listen to the right “take-out” opportunities as they come.Q: How to avoid a backfiring from one’s community when taking VC investment or being acquired. Quote the MySpace acquisition a bad news for its community.
A: Ross states that the issue is community management, and the social contract that has been signed with the community.Q: Why should a company take VC money if they are already cash flow positive ? Isn’t a VC investment becoming an endorsement ?
A: If you don’t need the money, then don’t bother with VCs (Fred Wilson: “If you don’t need money, and you take it, you should be shot”). And the endorsement value can only be leveraged in the context of relationships and contacts VCs can open.
A: Fred mentions another type of deals where VC (or private equity) funds buy out a portion of founders equity.Q: What is most valuable: technology, community, business model ?
A: Steve explains that clearly the value is in the network and the (geometric) pattern of growth of one’s community.Q: What is the expected desktop platform, 5 years out (vs. today’s dominance of Microsoft) ?
A: Weblogs and wikis will be used widely across businesses, and these tools don’t need Windows. Ross sees applications contributing to the social fabric as a driver for diversity.Q: There is a gap between Angels investing and VCs that is growing because of limited requirements of Web 20 companies. This has created a need for an incubator/early stage fund that VC firms could contribute to ?
A: Ross suggests that one of the ways would be to allow VC partners to invest their personal capital. Fred mentions that an early stage VC fund has been created for that purposed. Steve explains that there are limitations due to their own limited partnership agreements (and the need to avoid Double fee, Double carry).Q: How can Web 2.0 companies make money without having millions of users (in the case of an infrastructure company) ?
A: Generate value at all levels of usage (Ross mentions wikis delivering values to 2 people to large teams to very large communities).
論点としてはいくつかあるのですが、
①コストの低減＆開発スピードアップ と 資金調達額の減少
オープンソースを活用し、そして開発もコミュニティーで行っていくと、開発コストが下がり、スピードも上がるというものです。 そうなると、ＶＣから資金調達する金額も少なくてよい というのが一つ。
”Enterprise software companies used to cost $40M to be fully capitalized. $4M today.” と Ｒｏｓｓ が言っているように コストは１０分の１になった。
また、Ｓｔｅｖｅは以下のようなコメントをしている。
”Web 2.0 and Open source drive huge economies of scale thanks to network effects: he mentions SugarCRM and the fact they now support over 20 languages thanks to the community (which is after one year more than Salesforce.com in 8 years).” スピードアップ ということです。
シリコンバレー型というのは、スタートアップから、思い切りガソリン積んで、アクセル踏みましょう というのが一般的だったのですが、 Ｗｅｂ 2.0 では違うのだ ということです。
日本の場合でも同様です。ＧＲＥＥ，はてな、イーマーキュリー、フォートラベルさんといったところはオープンソースを活用しています。コンテンツもユーザーが参加して作るモデルです。 私はＧＲＥＥに経営参加している立場として、いろいろと発言する機会が多いのですが、まさにこのポイントは非常に重要なポイントです。
②ＩＰＯかＭ＆Ａか？
Web 2. 0 企業は、①のポイントであるようにコストが１０分の１といった劇的にコストストラクチャーがかわります。 ユーザーには無料で提供したり、エンタープライズ向けにも低価格で提供するというモデルになります。 生きていくためには、今までの１０分の１になるわけであり、売上の規模や成長性 といったところで、ＩＰＯに向かないのでは？ という質問です。実際にＭｙ Ｓｐａｃｅ が買収されたり、フリッカーが買収されたり、Ｗｅｂ 2.0の企業のＥＸＩＴはＭ＆Ａとなっています。
Steve も以下のようにコメントします。
”Steve makes the point that IPOs will only make sense for the top winners in VC portfolios, where returns will be spectacular. It should be targeted as a goal, being open to listen to the right “take-out” opportunities as they come.”
日本の場合は、ＩＰＯのハードルがＵＳと異なります。規模としてはたとえば、売上高が１０分の１ くらいでも上場できます。 ”spectacular" とありますが、日本の場合はチャンスは大きいと思います。
Web 2.0 のＩＰＯの成功事例は日本から生まれる と そう感じました。 コストが１０分の１、売上も１０分の１だが、 ＩＰＯのハードルの１０分の１ というのが理由です。
③ＶＣは必要か？
お金もそんな必要ないので、エンジェル投資家でもいいし、ＶＣファンドではなく、ＶＣのパートナーが個人でお金を出すのがよい というのがＲｏｓｓの意見があります（Ｓｔｅｖｅが言っているように利害相反になるので、個人でお金を投じることはできないのですが・・）。
結局、お金が必要のない時代は、起業家有利の時代だ というのが、セッションのタイトルであり、起業家をＨｅｌｐできる人（Ｐｅｏｐｌｅ）だったり、社外取締役のネットワークが価値がある というでした。
Question - If I don't need the money should I take it for endorsement?
Fred - You should never take the money don't take the money.Google took it because they had to. Endoresement value is worthless. Only two things that matter . Cash + people who will help you and not hurt you.
Question - Why are the VCs important at all? Justify your role.
Paul - The connections matter. They open the door for you. Board member contacts are valuable.
④コミュニティーの価値は？
Ｓｔｅｖｅ（有名ＶＣのＤＦＪのパートナー）は、テクノロジーより価値がある ということを言っています。 Ｓｏｃｉａｌ Ｔｅｘｔ のＣＥＯも Web 2.0 はＰｅｏｐｌｅが作るんだ！ と叫んでいたように、 Ｗｅｂ ２．０時代の価値の源泉は、人であり、そのコミュニティーなのだ。テクノロジーはオープンソースですし、オープンなビジネスモデルなので、いろいろな人が作り出すもののコラボレーションの結果が価値となってきます。
ユーザーであったり、従業員であったり、作りあがる価値はＰｒｉｃｅｌｅｓｓ。 逆に値段も付けにくい ということなのだと思います。
ＧＲＥＥでも既に上記のことは理解しており、違和感なく聞いていました。 私も英語が堪能だったらそれなりに話せたのになーと思い、もっと勉強しようと思いました。
最後に
”how Web 2.0 has changed VC investment strategies, and the amount of capital invested”
ということなのですが、私はＧＲＥＥモデル と はてな モデル というのが存在するなと思います。 ＧＲＥＥモデルというのは、会員数で１０万人になったが、従業員は数名（３－５名）となり、 そこかガソリン積んで走る というパターン。そのガゾリンも１億円程度で十分。 ネットバブル時代の１０－２０億円という時代は終わった。
はてな モデル というは経営陣やエンジェルといった投資家でひたすら、自社のコミュニティーのＶａｌｕｅ を高めることに専念です。
今回のＶＣ ２．０ セッションでは、ＧＲＥＥ型というのはＳｏｃｉａｌ Ｔｅｘｔ 社です。 エンジェルだけで十分だよ という意見もありました。
今後、どうなるかはわかりませんが、 私なりにいろいろと考えていきたいと思っています。
