[HN Gopher] Gumroad raises $5M from Crowd SAFE in first 24 hours
___________________________________________________________________
Gumroad raises $5M from Crowd SAFE in first 24 hours
Author : fastball
Score : 95 points
Date : 2021-03-16 05:39 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (republic.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (republic.co)
| kgwgk wrote:
| https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/ib_sa...
|
| "A SAFE ("Simple Agreement for Future Equity") is very different
| from traditional common stock and it is important to understand
| these differences in order to make an informed investment
| decision that is right for you.
|
| "A SAFE is an agreement between you, the investor, and the
| company in which the company generally promises to give you a
| future equity stake in the company if certain trigger events
| occur. Not all SAFEs are the same and the very important terms
| governing when you may get the future equity may vary across the
| SAFEs being offered in different crowdfunding offerings. Despite
| its name, a SAFE may not be "simple" or "safe."
| smalter wrote:
| a plug: we did a research report on gumroad's financials to give
| potential investors a deeper look at the company:
| https://sacra.com/research/gumroad-android-creator-economy/
|
| here are 3 key points:
|
| 1. gumroad experienced major covid tailwinds. whereas the
| company's five-year compound annual growth rate is 37%, it grow
| 94% from 2019 to 2020. they've been profitable since 2017.
|
| 2. gumroad's core customer base is creators making less than
| $10k/yr. gumroad is best positioned as an entry point for novice
| creators to start selling quickly and easily online. as creators
| cross the $10k/yr threshold, they become a churn risk because
| all-in-one products like kajabi and podia offer a more fully-
| featured product at the same price.
|
| 3. at the campaign's $100m pre-money valuation, gumroad will need
| to grow 40% yoy for 10 years to return double digit IRR.
|
| check out our report for a full breakdown of financials,
| competition and more: https://sacra.com/research/gumroad-android-
| creator-economy/
| eigenvalue wrote:
| Sounds like a terrible investment at a $100mm valuation.
| Probably worth closer to $35mm or $40mm tops.
| ketamine__ wrote:
| Is it just me or are most of the crowd funding opportunities
| horrible? Valuations too high, terms suck, company sucks.
| vmception wrote:
| Not just you, I've wasted a lot of time with founding teams
| that don't have access to venture capital due to lack of
| network, they so often also have a lack of awareness on what a
| good deal looks like, opting for completely arbitrary
| sweeteners that just make them look desparate and further
| uninvestible.
|
| Hope the deal flow improves.
| andygcook wrote:
| The investment is being done on a SAFE with a $100M valuation
| cap, not a $100M valuation with equity grants. That means
| theoretically Gumroad could never have a qualifying event by
| selling, going public, or raising a properly priced round by
| accredited investors. And therefore, investors never get an ROI.
| Dividends also require actual equity, not promissory notes. I'd
| imagine even if all investors did convert, paying dividends would
| be a non-starter given their company size and the number of
| investors.
|
| Using a SEAL or the Indie.VC V3 terms seems more inline with how
| they want to run the company because it includes an instrument
| for investors to get an ROI with a payback clause if you choose
| never to sell.
|
| I'd imagine there will be almost no pressure to sell because to
| my knowledge, no past employees or current contractors have
| equity, nor do they have outside institutional investors that
| want a return for LPs. I'd be curious to hear what the board
| structure is for oversight as well around important topics like
| salary comp, potential acquisitions, etc. There isn't much
| stopping the founder or a group of people from pulling out all
| the profits for themselves or just paying outsized salaries.
|
| Anyways, not dunking on it and just stating how some of the
| structures work from what I understand. The Gumroad story is an
| interesting one and I appreciate how they publicly share the
| experiments about how they're running too. Will be interesting to
| follow over the years.
|
| [edit: grammar]
| luckylion wrote:
| The $1000 maximum investment will probably mean that it won't
| be professional investors, but individuals who will likely not
| understand the risk and the potential for misuse. Nicely sized
| to fit into the stimulus check.
| duxup wrote:
| I'm concerned about the risk there as well, but I feel like
| you can spin that both ways. There's a weird intersection
| with opening investment to anyone and concerns about folks
| making ill informed choices.
| luckylion wrote:
| That's true, but I think something like SAFE is very
| different from crowdfunding for equity (and much more risky
| and misnamed, it can be neither simple nor safe).
|
| That intersection you mention will be an interesting place
| in the time to come. I don't think we've found the sweet
| spot between "only professionals can invest", "the retail
| investors take on huge risks and aren't aware because of
| wild models with strange names" and "the company can't
| raise medium amounts because the regulation surrounding the
| process would cost much more than they would get", but I'm
| sure somebody is working on it.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| I think there's a difference between "open investing for
| equity", and "open investing for a thing that one day may
| turn in to equity given a certain set of events".
|
| The majority of people will assume that "start up
| investing" or "equity crowdfunding" (or whatever you want
| to call it) is like the stock market, but on a smaller
| scale. You invest money, and you get shares in the company.
|
| I don't think the concern is around folks making ill
| informed choices (Robinhood has shown us that that can
| happen in the public markets as well), but more around
| start-up companies taking advantage of the lack of
| sophistication by the every-day investor in order to push
| horrendous terms.
| duxup wrote:
| I wonder how it would be possible to ... make someone
| know enough to make an informed choice and still allow
| more opportunities to invest.
|
| I like the idea of opening things up more like this but
| worry that actual scams could be a problem.
|
| It's not investing but similar to kickstarter and etc
| problems.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| Probably by keeping the crowdfunding part, but with
| reglation around the terms that have to be offered, and
| actions you're allowed to take after equity crowdfunding.
| But it's a pretty complex problem.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Using a SEAL or the Indie.VC V3 terms seems more inline with
| how they want to run the company because it includes an
| instrument for investors to get an ROI with a payback clause if
| you choose never to sell.
|
| My thoughts as well, though apparently it was unnecessary as
| they filled the round in 24 hours despite the relatively
| unfavorable terms for investors.
|
| > I'd imagine there will be almost no pressure to sell because
| to my knowledge, no past employees or current contractors have
| equity, nor do they have outside institutional investors that
| want a return for LPs
|
| They did wipe out early employee equity, but this funding round
| does have $1mm of institutional VC investment leading it.
| That's a curiously small number given the high valuation
| (effectively 1%) so I wonder if the VCs were more interested in
| leading the first big public startup investing round than the
| company itself. This raise is all over headlines today.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| > despite the relatively unfavorable terms for investors
|
| This is a concern that I have around equity crowdfunding in
| general, and I hope this situation doesn't go poorly and ruin
| it for everyone.
|
| The terms as described here are eerily reminiscent of the
| Toptal story, where at the time many defending Toptal saying
| "VCs should have known better". Does that same defense apply
| to a group of individual investors who were (apparently)
| limited to a maximum 1k check size?
|
| There was a lot of hype around this investment, which
| convinced a ton of people to try to get in on it, but I'm
| legitimately worried that the masses don't understand the
| actual terms of the round
| tinyhouse wrote:
| What do investors get? First time I hear about this site
| Republic.
| vmception wrote:
| they get something slightly above what all your local
| restuarants asked for on gofundme when they boosted your email
| from the square point of sale system:
|
| something close to non-dilutive financing and still hilariously
| opportunistic
| smalter wrote:
| the instrument is called a crowd SAFE:
| https://republic.co/learn/investors/crowdsafe
|
| republic is an angellist spinoff: https://republic.co/help/how-
| is-republic-part-of-a-family-of...
| tinyhouse wrote:
| Thanks, that's cool. I see Gumroad capped investments to
| $1000 once they saw the demand. That's not that interesting.
| It's great to have the opportunity to invest in private
| companies. I will keep an eye on it.
| greenie_beans wrote:
| Whew, love some good HN cynicism this early in the morning!
| Usually means there is something good.
| rollover wrote:
| This company is a disaster. They are even too stupid to
| understand the concept of account deletion. "How to delete your
| Gumroad account: From your Advanced Settings page, scroll to the
| bottom of the page, then click Delete your Gumroad account? After
| you've deleted your account, if you try to log back in, Gumroad
| will make your account "live" once again. Therefore, if you
| really want to delete your account, click Delete your Gumroad
| account? and don't log in again. Just... just go." WTF? That's
| not DELETION, that's SCAM and a GDPR violation.
| https://help.gumroad.com/article/37-how-to-delete-your-gumro...
| thecleaner wrote:
| How is this stupid ? Facebook does the same thing.
| giarc wrote:
| Just because Facebook does it, does not make it right.
| rollover wrote:
| If you delete an account, the account must be gone. No login
| possible anymore. Otherwise it's not deletion.
| Zealotux wrote:
| Gumroad is such a great model of company in my opinion:
| https://sahillavingia.com/work
|
| HN dicussion back then:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25673275
| Gelob wrote:
| I'm just waiting for youtube-dl to support gumroad
| https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/issues/26874
| santiagobasulto wrote:
| There was a pretty incendiary flame war on Twitter about this:
| https://twitter.com/nathanbarry/status/1371549184701067265
| paulgb wrote:
| My only relationship to any of this is as a gumroad customer
| but this seems like a cheap shot? Nathan alleges mismanagement
| but doesn't go into details as far as I can tell.
|
| To me the story seems to be that investors were ready to leave
| gumroad for dead, Sahil made some hard decisions and managed a
| very unlikely comeback.
| duxup wrote:
| What's up with the references to 'tanking' and 'mismanagement'?
|
| It's like the worst of twitter right there, just a bunch of
| tweet / word salad and accusations without anything to explain
| what any of that is / back up the meat of the accusations ...
| kjakm wrote:
| Something I didn't realise until a while after reading this was
| that the author of the tweets was previously a large Gumroad
| customer + now runs a competing business (ConvertKit Commerce).
| I believe the events he's talking about are also very public (I
| think the Gumroad founder wrote a blog post about it that was
| on HN not that long ago).
| dharmon wrote:
| Worse than feeling overly cynical is then having your
| cynicism validated.
|
| I recognized this guy's name, so skimming over the twitter
| thread my cynical thought was "I bet ConvertKit is working on
| a Gumroad competitor", and sure enough, they already have
| one.
| joshmanders wrote:
| Him being a competitor really doesn't change the shitty
| things Shl did.
| duxup wrote:
| >the shitty things Shl did.
|
| What? I asked earlier about 'mismanagement' and other
| accusations but nobody defines this stuff.
| joshmanders wrote:
| Good job downvoting instead of doing some self research.
| It's not hard to find stuff.
|
| The stuff Nathan talks about isn't even the worst. He
| never mentions Shl's attempt to monetize racial injustice
| and then telling a black woman she doesn't qualify for
| the promotion because her skin isn't dark enough, then
| blocking everyone who says what he did/said was not cool,
| and instead of acknowledging and fixing his fuckups, he
| just goes silent until the uproar dies down and then goes
| on with business.
| duxup wrote:
| >It's not hard to find stuff.
|
| What stuff?
|
| The rest of your post sounds like some personal conflict
| about some unrelated topic.... it's about racial
| injustice now?
|
| Are you saying the dude who posted that twitter thread is
| concerned about that?
| joshmanders wrote:
| I'm saying Shl is a shitty person and screwing the
| original creators of Gumroad out of their equity is just
| a drop in the bucket for the shitty things he's done, and
| Nathan creating ConvertKit Commerce in direct competition
| with Gumroad doesn't negate the things Nathan brings up,
| and other people have brought up in light of Shl taking
| peoples money for nothing in return.
|
| People are too quick to just ignore things people point
| out because _gasp_ he has a competing project!!!
| vmception wrote:
| So neither you or Nathan have posted what you would like
| to happen and why.
|
| What is that? Rebrand Gumroad instead? A lower valuation?
| Different kind of security issued with more rights? Shi
| should be shut out from the capital markets and corporate
| sphere forever? PSA to investors who have already 100%
| subscribed the max raise?
|
| I'm just grasping, what do you guys want to happen?
| joshmanders wrote:
| Why do we have to want something like that to happen? Why
| can't we just be like "Hey, just so you know, this stuff
| happened. Make sure you're not being duped into investing
| in Gumroad without knowing who you're investing in."
| Especially considering the terms on Republic not
| favorable at all for investors.
| vmception wrote:
| okay, I can see that. yeah its quite rhetorical and open
| ended, and the sale is already closed.
| gadders wrote:
| I think Nathan has put a slightly negative spin on what
| happened to Gumroad- maybe implying that it was intended all
| along - but he does have a bit of a point.
| duxup wrote:
| >he does have a bit of a point
|
| Whats the point? Really though, I'm having trouble figuring
| it out.
| gadders wrote:
| That Gumroad states it is "for creators" but the original
| Gumroad creators will not benefit from the new funding
| round.
| duxup wrote:
| IIRC 'creators' as far as Grumroad's tagline is concerned
| are their customers.
| gadders wrote:
| Yes, understood, but I guess Nathan Barry's point would
| be why treat your company co-creators differently than
| your customer-creators.
| duxup wrote:
| Call me crazy but I think the deal between the two is
| dramatically different up front, even what everyone does.
|
| End customer's don't have any equity... in the end
| neither did the employees. That's the same,
| unfortunately. But they're the same that way.
|
| I think those are two dramatically different deals you're
| making with people, pretending they should be the same
| seems oblivious to the actual relationships.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| Read the top comment on this article.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Gumroad is an interesting cautionary tale for employee equity
| compensation.
|
| The company was declared to have failed several years ago.
| Employees were laid off and the investors released the IP (built
| by the early employees) to the founder as a token of goodwill.
| Presumably, they thought he might use it to start a new company.
| Story here: https://www.businessinsider.com/startup-failure-
| gumroad-why-...
|
| However, he continued running the company with new part-time
| employees, minus original investors and minus the early employees
| who built the company. Apparently the company succeeded enough
| that it's now worth $100 million. Early employees who built the
| original site presumably don't have equity because they were laid
| off and their options expired worthless as they were told the
| company had failed.
|
| On one hand, it's great to see a founder persevere and rise from
| the ashes. On the other hand, watching the early employees lose
| out on their equity because they were told the company was a
| failure is not cool.
|
| I've made some money from startup options through my career so I
| won't agree that they're worthless as often claimed. However,
| this is a good reminder that the game is very stacked against the
| employees.
| duxup wrote:
| I like the idea that a startup that fails to be a unicorn can
| still be something. The alternative are these companies vanish
| because they're not worth an enormous amount in a short time..
|
| I'd argue the first issue is not being more direct / everyone
| understanding what it means to be an employee at a start up as
| it is equity wise.
|
| I'm not sure some token Grumroad tidbits thrown old employees
| way really would change much / I'd argue obligations like that
| would complicate any such resurrections.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > I like the idea that a startup that fails to be a unicorn
| can still be something.
|
| The problem isn't that the company failed to be a unicorn.
| The problem is that the company was declared to be worthless
| and was given away to the founder (but not employees who
| built it), but it obviously wasn't worthless as it's
| currently valued at $100 million. Early employee equity was
| wiped out in the process.
|
| The point is that you can work for a $100mm company, build
| the foundation of a $100mm company, yet walk away with
| nothing because the investors and founders can play games
| with your equity. Unlikely to happen again given how this
| played out. However it must hurt to be an early Gumroad
| employee doing the math on what their equity would have been
| worth today after being told the company was worthless.
| virgilp wrote:
| > but it obviously wasn't worthless
|
| I disagree, there's nothing obvious about it. On the
| contrary, I argue that it _WAS_ worthless (in the same vein
| that "ideas are worthless" - not that they lack anything
| of value, but that without sustained effort & dedication to
| extract said value, they're really not worth much).
|
| Also, it's entirely possible that the value of the company
| was actually _negative_ for the investors. Happens with
| other stuff too - sometimes you throw out junk that others
| recondition & sell for large sums of money. Were you
| tricked by those who resold your junk?
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > On the contrary, I argue that it WAS worthless
|
| The founder continued running the company with part time
| contractors and blogged about their profitability. It
| wasn't worthless.
| virgilp wrote:
| The founder might've earned more at a FAANG or different
| companies, just like the other early employees presumably
| did. He didn't contact the investors to buy them out for
| $1 - the investors did, because the tax cut was worth
| more to them by that point.
| ROARosen wrote:
| The alternative was to close down the company completely,
| I'm not sure how that would help the employees equity.
|
| Besides, options are by nature expiratory unless certain
| milestones are reached, which obviously wasn't the case.
| And if the employees did have real equity there is no way
| the founder could have gotten that without their consent.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > The alternative was to close down the company
| completely
|
| No, the alternative was to give the IP and equity
| ownership proportionally to the employees, not 100% to
| the founder.
|
| Instead, they gave it all to the founder and none to the
| employees who built the IP (as far as I can tell from
| public documents).
|
| Employees were told they received nothing because their
| work was useless. Apparently it wasn't so useless.
| duxup wrote:
| I'm a little confused about how this works in a sort of
| mechanical function.
|
| At the time it was deemed worthless or whatever term we
| want to call it, the owners were the initial investors.
| They sold it (well some of them) back to the initial
| founder.
|
| It's their ownership to sell....
|
| I go back to my point that we need to be honest about
| what the equity and rights of individual contributors
| really IS more than some ephemeral expectation that
| someone should get equity ... after most everyone has
| given up... or after others work to resurrect it.
| itronitron wrote:
| Dropping the price to exercise the options to zero
| dollars seems like it would be an equitable solution. If
| the company is really worth nothing then why should an
| option to buy a share of the company cost more than that?
| duxup wrote:
| >If the company is really worth nothing
|
| I'm not sure I understand why that would be or why that
| would even come up if you were investing in 'worth
| nothing'.
| p0ckets wrote:
| Do we know for a fact that the investors sold the equity
| back to the founder and not the company (like a stock
| buyback)? The investors just wanted to get out, so
| tracking down former employees, deciding how much equity
| each one deserves, and selling them equity probably isn't
| what they want to spend time doing. So the only real
| options would be selling to the company, or to the
| founder.
| whack wrote:
| > _However, he continued running the company with new part-time
| employees, minus original investors and minus the early
| employees who built the company. Apparently the company
| succeeded enough that it 's now worth $100 million. Early
| employees who built the original site presumably don't have
| equity because they were laid off and their options expired
| worthless as they were told the company had failed._
|
| Let me start off by saying that I think most startup
| compensation is downright bad for employees, compared to FANG
| alternatives. I would like to be a startup founder one day, but
| I realistically can't see myself as a startup employee.
|
| That said, I don't think Gumroad did anything morally wrong
| here. The layoffs were absolutely necessary, because the
| company would have gone bankrupt without them. But it's false
| to say that this caused employees to have no equity. Even if
| you get laid off as a startup employee, you can still choose to
| exercise your options and hold on to the company's equity, if
| you think that they will eventually be worth $100M. No one
| misled the employees about the company's future. They saw that
| the investors were pulling out. They saw that the engineering
| team was getting shredded. And they made the very reasonable
| assessment that the company's equity isn't worth the cost of
| exercising their options.
|
| Blaming Gumroad for employees not having equity, is like
| blaming AMD for their previous employees selling off their
| stock during their near-bankruptcy days. Any company can and
| will go through dramatic reversals of fortune. And whenever
| there's such a turnaround, there is bound to be people who
| missed out on the upside, because they didn't continue holding
| through the dark times.
| adamhp wrote:
| I've seen similar sentiment being repeated about Sahil, even
| by other successful founders like Nathan Berry.
|
| It is a bit unfair to look at everything in hindsight and
| assume Sahil acted maliciously. He did what he could to scrap
| together the resources to save a failing company. It's not
| like he ran some sort of shell game to rob the original
| contributors of their equity. People always view the past in
| this way and it is incredibly biased. You have to go back and
| step forward in time with each piece of information as it was
| available, and at the time it appeared the company was surely
| _going to fail_.
|
| In any case, I'd be curious to hear from some of the original
| contributors as to how they felt they were treated or how
| Sahil behaved.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Frankly, the investors who set the initial valuation
| (presumably used to set the strike price of the employee
| options) and later the $0 valuation (rendering the options
| worthless) and then giving away the IP that they declared
| worthless (despite the company not fundamentally changing)
| deserve a lot of the scrutiny.
|
| If the company had simply been left to make their own
| choices like laying off the employees and buying out
| investors, this would have been a different story.
| jonfromsf wrote:
| I mean strike prices are usually unrealistically LOW, as
| low as they can be without being fraud. There's a whole
| industry of 409a valuations that is used to legally say
| "we're selling preferred stock to investors as a 50MM
| valuation, but the common stock which represents 80% of
| the company is only worth 2MM". Founders want strike
| prices to be low because options are free compensation to
| employees.
|
| The issue is the out-going employees thought that a stake
| in the business was literally worthless, which turned out
| not to be true. Very similar to the Blogger story
| actually.
| [deleted]
| vmception wrote:
| The employees didn't pay for their options because the options
| were "out of the money" and the employees had various
| confirmations that the shares would not be worth anything, but
| they still had the choice to.
|
| Yeah I guess cautionary tale is the good word here.
|
| > watching the early employees lose out on their equity because
| they were told the company was a failure is not cool
|
| eh, they had the choice, this isn't a story of the share class
| changing or the entity being changed, and you had to write
| presumably because you don't know and are relying on the
| financial unsophistication of many tech employees
|
| can be a tough choice to both earn below market salary and then
| be expected to use that income to buy your shares. sadly this
| is due to various tax law changes over the last few decades.
|
| but yeah this isn't "egregious enough" for me to garner
| anything from it.
|
| its a case study about how much you can do with contractors and
| that you don't need venture capital or the employee structure
| if you know what you actually want to build
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > The employees didn't pay for their options because the
| options were "out of the money" and the employees had various
| confirmations that the shares would not be worth anything,
| but they still had the choice to.
|
| That's a side effect of the problem, not the cause of the
| problem.
|
| Why did the employee options expire worthless? Because they
| were issued at one valuation, then the investors changed the
| valuation to $0. Yet the company and technology didn't
| change. In fact, it kept operating with the same brand, same
| customers, and website.
|
| The investors and founder both dipped the valuation to zero
| because it was in their best personal interests, dropping
| employees with options in the process.
|
| That's why I framed this as a cautionary tale for employees
| looking to help startups. This wouldn't have been a big deal
| if the company simply went through the normal failure process
| where the IP was sold on the open market in the normal
| process. Even if the founder had bought the company IP back
| for $1 if no one else wanted it, that would have at least
| persevered some appearance of fairness.
| vmception wrote:
| I see, thats strange, do we know who the investors were? I
| didn't look at Crunchbase or anything yet
|
| Just an odd thing to agree to, if the IP had value and
| there were no creditors but the prospects were bad then
| this was improper.
|
| If there were creditors, what happened to them?
| haltingproblem wrote:
| Disclosure - I don't know Sahil and have never had any
| interaction with him or Gumroad except as an ocassional Gumroad
| customer.
|
| I find this take to be disingenuous at best and outright
| misinformed at worst. Sahil has been very public with what
| happened [1]. Gumroad turned out to be a lifestyle business and
| not a VC funded boom or bust rocket.
|
| He could have easily shut down Gumroad and gone on to bigger
| and better things. He persevered and today Gumroad has risen
| from the ashes and creators are better off for it. Kudos to him
| and his motley crew. He has extensively blogged about it and
| been public about Gumroad's finances. Maybe one day Gumroad
| will be worth $1B but it is a long road ahead and I wish the
| new investors the best.
|
| Back to Sahil's actions, unless you have actual instances of
| wrongdoing by him, I feel you are just flinging innuendo.
|
| [1] https://sahillavingia.com/reflecting
| elnygren wrote:
| This is why you want stock/equity instead. Everything else is
| just toilet paper until it becomes stock/equity.
|
| Usually countries have lots of laws and regulations protecting
| small shareholders, but not really anything to protect people
| who might become shareholders one day.
|
| I wish companies had easy ways to give out real stock instead
| of options... it's up to regulators to make this smoother,
| easier, cheaper.
| jelling wrote:
| The problem is that the employee would have to pay taxes on
| the value of the stack at the time it was issued. Given how
| high valuations can be and still never pan out, giving
| employees stock directly would cost them significant amounts
| of money in most cases.
| kirubakaran wrote:
| RSUs + double trigger gets around this
| jasode wrote:
| _> , he continued running the company with new part-time
| employees, _
|
| I think he continued with part-time _contractors_ instead of
| employees if I read his blog post correctly:
| https://sahillavingia.com/work
|
| _> Instead, I found an Indian firm called BigBinary and hired
| a few engineers as contractors.
|
| >These contractors saved the company. They fixed bugs and
| maintained the site while I answered support tickets, designed
| features, and wrote about new initatives._
|
| [I'll delete this post if it's inaccurate]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-16 23:02 UTC)