Different organizations in order of increasing complexity from viewpoint of engaging people
Individual – small informal group – small semiformal group… - (…) …all the way to collective of diverse individuals and groups at different stages and sizes such as Meta Project … Meta Project-like collectives of people globally…all the way to entire community of humans…to living beings…to planet…to beyond.
In order of maturation of stage of business, both corporate and non-profit versions
Nascent – ready to set first rules and structures – has some rules and structures – Incorporated in some form – startup with some funding – startup with more funding, more structured, more stable – (…) …mature global corporation – global conglomerate – global industry – global business ecosystem - …
In order of increasing levels of funding maturity
Nascent, no funding – volunteers/founders discussing potential sources of funding (internal, external sources) – outreach to funders currently happening – first external funding brought in – (…) have funding, not self-sufficient, not sustainable – close to self-sufficient, sustainable – self-sufficient, sustainable – cash flowing, profitable – active resource to other organizations from free cash flow/profit – (…)
Funders in order of check size
Non-angel “regular folks” – accredited (angel) investors – angel groups – seed funds (only do seed-stage) – early-stage funds (may do seed, may follow into later stage deals but mainly focus on early) – later stage funds (don’t do seed or early, but keep an eye on them) – crossover funds (like later stage funds, but invest both in private and public companies, participate actively in IPOs; do later stage fundings mainly to be in the deal when IPO happens, may follow on more into public rounds, but often not as much as large public investors) – public specialist investors specializing in the space – generalist investors – (from early stage public to large public, different investor sets…) – (…).
Funders by type (check sizes differ in life science vs tech, tech funds can do smaller and larger than life sciences)
Regular non-accredited, non-angel investors – may be a fit to fund Meta Project; write smaller checks (hundreds, thousands, less likely tens of thousands and beyond)
Angels – generalist (take any deal), specialists (specific field only, or type of entrepreneur, or type of cause, or special geography, …) – may be a fit to fund Meta Project. Write small larger checks (thousands, tens and hundreds of thousands, more rarely millions). Many private wealth groups and family offices aggregate private holdings of families to invest together, others work alone.
Institutional funders (financially motivated) – VCs (seed, early, late), Crossovers (late, early public), Public (specialists, generalists) – institutional funders are typically funded by larger institutions (pension funds, insurance companies and the like). Most of those are not a direct fit to fund Meta Project, but may be funders for companies engaged in the Meta Project. (Seed funds may go as low as tens of thousands, most seed to early stage funds look to place in bite sizes of $25-$100,000 minimum, early stage funds often place singe digit millions, later stage funds often can’t do deals smaller than $15-25M check sizes. Institutional funders typically like to work together (syndicate).
Strategic institutional funders (financially and strategically motivated) – corporate investors, billionaires and other high net worth types and family offices, foundations with a strategic mission, impact investors, institutional social impact investors. Strategic funders either seek only a strategic return, or both strategic and financial return. Strategic institutional funders are typically funded by non-financial institutions (corporations, foundations, government, private wealth families and groups) that benefit from work of the fund, and/or wish to support such strategic work. They may also be funded by large financial institutions wanting to diversity into strategic capital pools (to concentrate in strategic areas, say environment) and causes (social impact for example – larger institutional funds focusing on ESG etc. have traditional pension fund/insurance company type funding sources). Strategic institutional funders have a professional cadre of gatekeepers and evaluators, and often it is good to bypass them through direct relationships to principals in the funds, to not get lost in the noise (same is true for VCs, but we are unlikely to be a good fit for VCs – yet mentality and processes are quite similar in both spaces).
Government funding – often grants, loans, using RFP mechanisms to distribute funds to areas of strategic value. May or may not be tied to financial return.
Each of the different funders have different needs (their gatekeepers are looking specifically for certain types of deals by size, stage, geography, field, type of entrepreneur/principal, return or strategic benefit expectation, …). It behooves us to understand who all are out there among the universe of funders, and to develop a map of funders that are a) relevant to Meta Project and b) relevant to Meta Project participants. Just as entrepreneurs and social benefit innovators are looking for best sources of funding, so are funders looking for best entrepreneurs and best deals.