The minority growth equity investment follows a bootstrapped family-and-friends round in 2015 that accumulated less than $1 million.聽

The company was founded in 2014 to help nonprofits better streamline their fundraising capabilities. GiveCampus acts almost as a for schools鈥攊t can receive donations from fintech platforms such as or , record in-person donations, and accept cryptocurrency, effectively making donations as easy as possible for donors. It also can identify and engage with active alumni to promote ongoing donations.聽

The Washington, D.C.-based startup launched in 2015 and says it has since processed $2 billion in donations to more than 1,000 educational institutions.聽

鈥淎s we embark on this next chapter, we will continue to obsess over the needs and priorities of our partner schools while integrating additional capabilities, data, and insights into our platform in order to drive even bigger impact,鈥� GiveCampus co-founder and CEO said in a statement.

The company estimates annual earnings of more than $20 million and has been profitable since 2016.聽

Startups add charitable arms to mission

Social impact startups that make donating easy through frictionless payments are starting to see massive growth, despite not hitting the billion-dollar mark. Between 2018 and 2019, funding in the space jumped 187% and peaked in 2021 with $485 million, according to SA国际传媒 data.

The majority of these companies aren鈥檛 fintech platforms like GiveCampus. One, , is a benefits platform that leverages charitable giving to incentivize employees to use their benefits. The company raised $125 million in February. Another, , raised $39 million in June. Sharebite is a meal delivery platform, and every meal ordered results in a meal donated, according to the company.

Illustration:

Subscribe to the SA国际传媒 Daily

The San Francisco-based startup had raised just over $20 million since it was founded in 2015. Its last fundraise, a $16.5 million led by , took place in March 2018. Previous investors include , , and 9Point Ventures.

At the time of its Series A, Starsky announced that it had successfully driven its self-driving cargo truck for seven miles without a driver, according to .

鈥淣o safety driver behind the wheel, no engineer hiding on the bunk. We are the first company to make driverless trucks a reality,鈥� Starsky Robotics鈥� co-founder CEO said in a blog post then.

Fast-forward just over two years, and Seltz-Axmacher published a with a far more somber tone titled simply, 鈥淭he End of Starsky Robotics.鈥� He wrote:

鈥淚n 2015, I got obsessed with the idea of driverless trucks and started Starsky Robotics. In 2016, we became the first street-legal vehicle to be paid to do real work without a person behind the wheel. In 2018, we became the first street-legal truck to do a fully unmanned run, albeit on a closed road. In 2019, our truck became the first fully-unmanned truck to drive on a live highway.

And in 2020, we鈥檙e shutting down.鈥�

It鈥檚 unclear exactly how many employees will be affected by the shutdown, but a photo from February 2019 posted on Seltz-Axmacher鈥檚 blog shows 鈥渕uch of Starsky鈥檚 office team,鈥� with just under three dozen employees.

In a March 19聽, Seltz-Axmacher details how things fell apart at the company. By Nov. 12, 2019, Starsky鈥檚 $20 million Series B had fallen through, and most of the team was furloughed just three days later in what he described as 鈥減robably the worst day of my life.鈥� The founders then started working on selling the company, and 鈥渕aking sure the team didn鈥檛 go without shelter.鈥�

What happened?

With so many autonomous vehicle funding companies raising millions of dollars as of late, one has to wonder what happened in the case of Starsky Robotics.

Seltz-Axmacher blames timing in part for his company鈥檚 demise.

In his blog post, he said the space was too overwhelmed 鈥渨ith the unmet promise of AI to focus on a practical solution.鈥�

He continued:

鈥淎s those breakthroughs failed to appear, the downpour of investor interest became a drizzle. It also didn鈥檛 help that last year鈥檚 tech IPOs took a lot of energy out of the tech industry, and that trucking has been in a recession for 18 or so months.鈥�

Seltz-Axmacher also noted that investors didn鈥檛 seem to care for the company鈥檚 model of being the operator. He also claimed that Starsky鈥檚 鈥渉eavy investment into safety didn鈥檛 translate for investors.鈥�

Currently in the process of selling the assets of the company, Seltz-Axmacher said those assets include a number of patents essential to operating unmanned vehicles.

Meanwhile, 鈥檚 raised a staggering $2.25 billion earlier this month. That deal came just 10 months after rival self-driving car outfit at an approximate $18 billion post-money valuation. In February 2019, self-driving car startup raised $530 million in a led by .

Starsky鈥檚 competitors include (which raised last September) and Canada鈥檚 .

According to VentureBeat, in September 2017 Starsky Robotics completed the longest end-to-end autonomous trip on record. 鈥淎fter Hurricane Irma hit southwestern Florida, the company used one of its trucks to aid recovery efforts, hauling water 68 miles from one end of the state to the other without human intervention.鈥�

I鈥檓 no self-driving expert but that sounds pretty cool.

Illustration:

We could go on.

And then there are evergreen firms. In a nutshell, evergreen firms have open-ended fund structures with no termination date. As such, they are permitted to recycle capital from realized returns and aren鈥檛 bound by the same time constraints as a traditional VC firm. That means these investors are well-equipped to sit out sudden shifts or extended downturns in market cycles (such as the one we are potentially about to experience).

Subscribe to the SA国际传媒 Daily

The fact that evergreen firms can invest in a company through multiple stages means they aren鈥檛 as pressured to exit. Traditional venture funds often have less flexibility and may be pressured by their fund structure to cash out earlier than an evergreen fund might. Limited partnerships are typically family offices.

Recently, I happened to talk to two evergreen venture firms with the intention of getting a better understanding of what they do, and that got me thinking:聽 What advantages might the evergreen structure provide in fast-changing market cycles?

To find out, I talked to partners from and , both of which are evergreen funds 鈥� there鈥檚 estimated to only be a handful of such firms.

I also talked with a startup founder who has been backed by one of these firms to learn why he went that route.

Let鈥檚 dive in.

Maverick Ventures

Maverick Ventures launched in 2015 as the venture arm of 25-year-old, $8 billion hedge fund . The firm currently has $382 million in capital commitments and in a short amount of time has built up an impressive portfolio.

For context, over time, Maverick Capital and Maverick Ventures combined have deployed $1 billion in 94 private companies, had 24 IPOs聽 or acquisitions and helped create 11 unicorns. It was also among the first investors in . Rather than mixing public (hedge fund) investing and private investing, it launched Maverick Ventures.

The two entities have seen notable exits in DNA sequencing startup being by for $1.2 billion in 2018; going public in 2018; being acquired by for $4.4 billion in 2016. Another portfolio company, concierge medical services provider , recently went public.

Maverick has also invested in the likes of direct-to-consumer wellness brand (recently re-branded to hims and hers), Indian digital health care platform ; health benefits platform and India-based scooter startup .

I hopped on the phone with , managing director of Maverick Ventures, who told me that when the firm kicked off five years ago, evergreen funds were actually 鈥渧ery unheard of.鈥�

The fact that Maverick has hedge fund roots, giving the firm a footing in both private and public markets, provided a unique perspective, he said. (Hedge funds are financial partnerships that use pooled funds and employ different strategies to earn active returns for their investors, according to .)

Maverick鈥檚 strategy has always been to invest in the series A-C stages, which is earlier than hedge funds in terms of venture.

As you can probably tell from some of the investments mentioned above, health care IT makes up nearly 60 percent of the firm鈥檚 portfolio. Software in general is big for Maverick Ventures and the remainder of its portfolio is split among B2B and consumer startups.

鈥淲e don鈥檛 have fund one, two and three,鈥� Kinsella told me. 鈥淚t鈥檚 one perpetual pool of capital.鈥�

The fact that venture-backed businesses have been staying private longer is not always compatible with the seven- to 10-year fund life that typical funds currently have, said Kinsella.

鈥淢ost firms have not reserved enough to support a company through its private life. Sometimes, they need to force an exit and that is not always an optimal outcome for an LP or company,鈥� he explained. 鈥淲ith us, there鈥檚 no end to the fund life. So how we invest is never based on the dynamics of the fund itself. It鈥檚 always an economically rational decision.鈥�

He admitted, however, that evergreen structures are not for everyone when it comes to LPs.

鈥淚f you鈥檙e a pension fund or an endowment, your capital needs might be more near-term so you might be more apt to go with a closed-end fund to make sure you get your capital back at a certain point of time,鈥� Kinsella told SA国际传媒 News.

As such, evergreen fund structures lend themselves well to family offices, which usually have a longer time frame when it comes to investing.

鈥淭hey usually don鈥檛 want capital in the near-term for tax purposes,鈥� Kinsella said. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e more focused on compounding their returns. That said, there are endowments that have invested in evergreen funds.鈥�

Maverick鈥檚 model is based on that of . In fact, Sutter backed two of the companies that Maverick Ventures Managing Partner had started.

Founder perspective

I talked with , founder of newly branded, about his decision to take money from Maverick during his company鈥檚 seed round in the summer of 2017–just months before its launch. The company, formerly known as hims, shipped its first boxes to customers in late 2017 and saw $1 million in sales its first week.

Since then, the company has raised over $200 million with Maverick participating in nearly every round since. It also has grown to more than $100 million in revenue. The company , with over a $1 billion valuation, in early 2019.

For Dudum, acknowledgement by Maverick that health care-related businesses generally take longer to incubate was crucial in its decision to go with an evergreen firm as an investor.

鈥淲e were going after a really tangled complicated problem,鈥� he told me. 鈥淪o having an evergreen fund with that type of time horizon capability was really beneficial. The fund structure lent itself well to the nature of our business.鈥�

Long-term committed capital was appealing to Dudum, who wanted investors 鈥渁round the table at every stage of the company鈥檚 development.鈥�

Additionally, Maverick鈥欌�檚 鈥渦nique鈥� health care expertise has been valuable, with tactical advice through all the company鈥檚 stages, he said.

鈥淲e recently brought on a chief medical officer, who was at ,鈥� Dudum told me. 鈥淢averick was absolutely critical in making that happen.鈥�

Thomvest Ventures

San Francisco-based Thomvest Ventures is another evergreen fund based in San Francisco. Thomvest Ventures is not a traditional fund that raises capital from limited partners (LPs). Instead, it is investing the capital of one individual, , whose family owns the majority of Thomson Reuters.

I talked with , a managing director, who told me that there鈥檚 been an increased prevalence of large family offices in the VC industry, which has in turn been increasing the number of evergreen funds.

Butler has been working for Thomvest for two decades, and over that time he鈥檚 鈥渘ot bumped into that many firms that look like us.鈥�

With $500 million under management, Thomvest Ventures is one of the larger evergreen funds around. Its sweet spot is investing from seed to Series C.

Personally, Butler has backed nearly 60 companies, such as crowdfunding platform , as well as and small business loan provider . He saw a few exits late last year, including being to for about $750 million and for $150 million.

鈥淚t really does come back to the relationship with the principal sponsoring the fund,鈥� Butler told SA国际传媒 News. 鈥淚n some ways, corporate VCs could be quasi-evergreens because they too set aside funds and incentives. There鈥檚 that balance sheet of a corporate partner you could go back to.鈥�

Over the past seven to eight years, Thomvest has become vertically focused, 鈥渨hich has been a tremendously good thing鈥� for the firm, Butler said. The three verticals it鈥檚 focused on are fintech, cybersecurity and adtech/martech/salestech. Within that, it has a particular interest in real estate technology, believing that it 鈥渇eels like where online credit was four years ago.鈥�

鈥淚t鈥檚 really coming into its own,鈥� he said.

Thomvest prides itself on deep research projects that it conducts twice a year for months at a time–taking inspiration from journalists (which makes sense given its origin), according to Butler. The company鈥檚 principals and associates focus on a specific vertical, and consider things such as where that industry is going, and whether they are at the right place at the right time.

鈥淭hen we go look for the right team,鈥� Butler said. 鈥淚 believe the best companies have all sorts of investors competing to become an investor. It鈥檚 insanely competitive.鈥�

As we head into a challenging market cycle, it will be interesting to see what kind of role evergreen funds will play in supporting private companies and their ability to weather a potential (and likely) downturn.

Illustration:

Subscribe to the SA国际传媒 Daily

According to the filing, the company has raised a little over $71 million of a round aiming to raise up to $83.85 million in fresh capital for the company. Rigetti Computing disclosed in its filing that the total amount raised and the total offering amount includes approximately $23.85 million1 from the conversion of convertible securities into equity in the company.

The filing states that, so far, 65 investors contributed capital to the round, and that the company received its first capital commitment for the round on Feb. 18, 2020.

, an investor with , is a new addition to the company’s board. It’s typical for lead investors to take a board seat following a deal, so it’s likely that Bessemer is the lead investor in Rigetti’s latest round.

According to SA国际传媒 data, the company has in prior funding. Rigetti’s last round was closed in November 2017.

Depending on whether the convertible securities mentioned in today’s filing were previously reported, the company has now raised between $166.7 million and $190.5 million, and it is authorized to raise $12.8 million more in this offering.

The company’s valuation and information about which investors participated in the deal have not been disclosed at this time. Previously disclosed the likes of , , , , and , among others.

滨濒濒耻蝉迟谤补迟颈辞苍:听

Subscribe to the SA国际传媒 Daily

DoorDash said in its announcement that the number of shares on offer and a target price range for the transaction “have not yet been determined.”

The brief statement also adds that the IPO “is expected to take place after the SEC completes its review process, subject to market and other conditions.” In recent days, the U.S. stock market has experienced significant downward pressure amid concerns about the spreading SARS-CoV-2 virus and speculation about the scale of its impact on the global economy.

As of 2017, the SEC has granted smaller, high-growth companies a path to initially file their S-1 registration statements confidently, allowing for regulatory review without immediate exposure to scrutiny from the media and would-be public market investors. Confidentially filed S-1 documents are made public prior to IPO.

According to SA国际传媒 data, San Francisco-based DoorDash has raised in equity funding since its inception in 2013. Its last private market valuation was approximately $12.6 billion, post-money, earned in .

The include the likes of , , , , , the Singaporean sovereign wealth fund , and the .

DoorDash has never released a complete picture of its financials, which will be part of the IPO process. The company is not profitable and was expected to lose $450 million on revenue of between $900 million and $1 billion in 2019, according to from .

The company faces a number of labor disputes, as its “gig economy” workers are treated as independent contractors and are not eligible to receive benefits like health insurance. Earlier in February DoorDash was as it works through individual cases brought by 5,010 drivers for the platform who believed the company was in violation of California labor law.

滨濒濒耻蝉迟谤补迟颈辞苍:听

Subscribe to the SA国际传媒 Daily

Disentangling what, exactly, a “seed” round is these days is kinda tough. Not so long ago, a company might’ve raised a little bit of money from friends and family to get off the ground, and raised their first institutional investment round at Series A. But institutional capital has moved further and further upstream. In many cases today, seed is the first institutional round a company raises.

But that doesn’t begin to address the full semantic complexity of the funding landscape for fledgling ventures. Yes, there’s seed, but now, for even earlier-stage companies, there’s an emerging class of specialized pre-seed investors. Already seed-funded companies may opt to raise a “seed-plus” or “seed extension” round if they’re not quite ready to pursue a proper Series A round.

This doesn’t even get into whether the round is priced or unpriced. If priced: What metrics were used to derive the company’s valuation? If unpriced: What sort of financial instrument is being used? A Simple Agreement for Future Equity (SAFE) or convertible debt? Capped or uncapped? Discount or no discount? What are the triggers for conversion into honest-to-goodness equity shares? What’s the likelihood that a convertible debt instrument or SAFE will actually convert?

Suffice it to say there’s a lot of complicated stuff happening in the earliest stages of a company’s life as an investible asset.

But one thing’s for sure: most rounds aren’t very big, but they are getting bigger.

Sizing the swarm of seed

To bear this out, we analyzed 15,538 funding rounds labeled as seed in SA国际传媒’s dataset, which were raised by 12,772 unique U.S.-based startups between January 2015 and mid-February 2020. Rounds without listed dollar amounts were excluded from our sample set. We then segmented our data by the size of funding round, bucketing the numbers in half-million-dollar increments, inclusively. (e.g. a $500,000 seed round would be in the “$0 to $500,000” category, whereas a $500,001 seed round would belong in the “$500,000 to $1,000,000” bucket.)

Here are the numbers in chart form.

This is a surprisingly neat-looking chart. It’s pretty darn close to a perfect exponential decay function, up to a certain point.

In our sample set, just a bit over 60.5 percent of recent U.S. seed rounds came in at less than $1 million. On the one hand, that’s not surprising. At least in SA国际传媒’s data, most of the rounds in which the big accelerator programs invest in are labeled seed. And since theirs is a business of seeding at scale, the influence of accelerators can be seen in the market. writes $150,000 checks these days, to hundreds of companies per year. , , and other large-scale accelerator programs write similar-sized checks. Smaller programs, especially those located outside major startup hubs, tend to write even smaller checks. In our sample set, 9.4 percent consisted of seed rounds that were $50,000 or less.

A rising tide for recent seed

If you follow startup funding news closely, you might have the feeling that seed rounds are getting larger. On the whole, current data suggests that they indeed are.

In the chart below, we plot the same set of 15,538 rounds–still segmented by $500,000 increments–but this time we split the distribution into two chunks of time: rounds raised in the three years between 2015 and 2017, and those raised in the little more than two years between 2018 and mid-February 2020, when we pulled the data. You’ll note in the legend of the chart that we’re dealing with significantly different sample sizes between the two time periods, due in part to the fact that the actual amount of time included differs between the two sets of data, and due to known reporting delays in private company financing data.

You’ll notice that the distribution of round size decays somewhat exponentially for both subsets of seed rounds. However, in the case of rounds struck between 2018 and very early 2020, the long tail of the distribution is a little fatter.

In other words, the majority of rounds are still pretty small. Of the rounds reported between 2018 and early 2020, 70.3 percent were $2 million or less. But of the seed rounds announced between 2015 and 2017, 83 percent were $2 million or less. More recent seed rounds, as a population, are bigger than seed rounds raised by a previous generation of startups.

A small set of the most recent seed rounds are creeping up toward the size of small Series A rounds. In relative terms, the proportion of seed rounds that were larger than $3 million more than doubled from one cohort to the next. Of the seed rounds raised in the 2015-2017 period, 7.8 percent raised over $3 million, and 17 percent of the seed rounds raised between 2018 and early 2020 were greater than $3 million.

What does one make of all this?

First, this is hardly new information. SA国际传媒 News has tracked the rising size of seed rounds in its quarterly reporting over the course of several years. It’s a global phenomenon; the U.S. seed scene is not a hotspot in an otherwise tepid market. It seems that seed investors around the world are warming to the idea of funding larger rounds.

Second, it shows a shift in investor strategy over time. From the investor standpoint it makes good business sense to back larger rounds, because unless valuations are rising faster than round size (which is hard to tell given limited available data) bigger rounds redound a bigger chunk of equity to seed investors. If that larger position can be defended through negotiation and exercise of pro-rata rights in the rounds that follow, seed funds backing bigger rounds may end up generating higher returns over time than their counterparts backing comparatively smaller seed deals.

Third, despite all the anecdotal evidence that seed rounds are getting bigger, and despite the numbers presented above, it’s important to note that the significance of the change between the two cohorts might be attenuated by reporting delays. This is not to say that the shift toward bigger seed rounds, as of late, isn’t real. It’s just that it can sometimes take several quarters (heck, occasionally a year or more) for seed funding to be disclosed and ultimately added to a set of private company data like SA国际传媒. Data reporting delays are a known phenomenon across all private company datasets, to varying extents. So, if in a couple years we look back at the same windows of time (2015-2017 and 2018-February 2020) the numbers may have shifted slightly as smaller, currently undisclosed rounds surface and get integrated into the dataset. That being said, it’s still a safe bet to say that, on the whole, seed rounds got bigger.

As a parting thought, it’s important to think about what happens to this big seed trend if and when the world economy starts to slow down. So much more capital has flowed into seed-stage ventures over time, but what happens when it eventually ebbs?

滨濒濒耻蝉迟谤补迟颈辞苍:听

Subscribe to the SA国际传媒 Daily

and founded New York-based Equal Ventures last year with the goal of investing in 鈥渇ounders who are bringing technology innovations to existing markets that will transform society and industry.鈥�

In other words, they鈥檙e looking to back entrepreneurs looking to shake up existing industries that impact 鈥渢he way we work and live.鈥� Those industries include: insurance, logistics/supply chain, retail infrastructure and the care economy.

鈥淲e鈥檙e not focused on technology development, such as internet infrastructure, but more on the deployment of technology,鈥� Zullo told me in a phone call. 鈥淥ur core focus is to bring the knowledge and networks necessary to help founders solving problems in these complex and nuanced industries in their push to attract capital and bring products to market.鈥�

Also, Equal has the ambitious goal of bridging the digital divide 鈥渂etween the combative worlds of incumbents and innovators.鈥�

鈥淥ne of our core beliefs is that by bridging that divide between the technology haves and have nots, benefits are more evenly distributed across all parts of society and industries,鈥� Zullo said. 鈥淎t the same time, we look to generate some great returns.鈥�

Old-hand investors

Kerby and Zullo are no strangers to investing. They鈥檝e previously backed and worked with a number of companies that have seen successful exits such as (acquired by ) and hiring platform (bought out by ). And they did this while working at VC firms such as , , and . Kerby also founded , a community for African Americans in tech.

The pair鈥檚 approach to sourcing deals for Equal Ventures is what they describe as data-driven. They spend the majority of their time researching and analyzing the dynamics of the markets in which they鈥檙e looking to invest. Their goal is to identify potential solutions to the market before it鈥檚 obvious.

Notably, they have an interesting mix of LPs, including founder and CEO . Other LPs include the founders of new Austin-based unicorn , traditional institutional LPs, university endowments, general partners of other VC firms and some Fortune 500 executives 鈥渨ho know how to move needles in these industries鈥�

鈥淥ur LPs are a combination of industry operators, providers of investment capital and top-tier founders, which we believe is exciting alchemy for future success,鈥� Zullo told SA国际传媒 News.

Staying connected

Equal Ventures had its first close last April and has since invested in six portfolio companies.

Those portfolio companies include: retail platform , home renovation marketplace , employee benefits-focused and , which aims to improve 鈥渢he access, accountability, and affordability in the senior living market via a managed marketplace to help place seniors in the best facilities.鈥�

Equal Ventures鈥� goal with the fund is to invest in 20 companies total with an average initial check of about $1.5 million, according to Zullo. It does not have a multistage strategy, he adds. Instead, the firm wants to get in at the early stage with a significant ownership stake.

鈥淲e鈥檙e a little bit more concentrated and focused on getting ownership early,鈥� Zullo said. 鈥淲e want significant skin in the game and at the same time, we don鈥檛 want to invest in too many companies so that we can make sure we have the time and resources necessary to be hands-on for those companies.鈥�

Illustration:

Subscribe to the SA国际传媒 Daily

Her software startup, , is currently part of the winter batch at and has just raised $600,000 in venture capital from a crop of investors.

Notable investors in TrueNorth include Y Combinator, CEO Jack Altman, CEO Parker Conrad and CSO Peter Fishman. Liquid2, Joe Montana鈥檚 fund, and others also invested.

While we usually don鈥檛 cover rounds of this size, an uptick in funding for the logistics and freight space made us more keen to look at what it takes for a new startup to enter the market, especially when billion-dollar companies like take much of the spotlight.

TrueNorth

Stedge was adopted as a child by a family of truckers, and that upbringing led her to have personal insight into the weaknesses of the industry.

Her grandparents were truckers in the 1980s–and 鈥�40 years later, little has changed,鈥� from a technology perspective she told SA国际传媒 News. She pointed to her cousin, Tom, who is a trucker.

鈥淗e still operates primarily on phone calls and mail,鈥� she said. 鈥淢ost financial tools in the industry are clunky at best, predatory at worst.鈥�

TrueNorth, founded by Stedge and , offers software that puts 鈥渋ndependent truckers under one roof.鈥� While the company doesn鈥檛 lease trucks, it helps truckers have a platform to manage insurance, fuel and maintenance. Think of it as an operating system, but for trucks. It also helps truckers with route optimization, dispatch and load coordination, and automated tracking.

The entrepreneur considers average trucking agencies like as her competitors.

Currently, truckers have to choose between working in a large fleet like JB Hunt with little independence, or give up revenue by being a solo operation. TrueNorth claims it offers large-fleet resources, like those listed above, with a lower take rate than traditional companies because its back-office is powered by software.

鈥淲e cut down the busywork to 10 percent of what it traditionally is, so that our employees can focus on the relationship side of trucking,鈥� she wrote in a blog post.

The TrueNorth founders previously spent time at where they worked on autonomous trucking technology. So this isn鈥檛 their first road trip.

鈥淎utonomy is really far away, at least a decade or two,鈥� she said. 鈥淎nd it鈥檚 not going to displace truckers any time soon.鈥�

Illustration:

Editor鈥檚 note: Changes have been made to reflect Ilona Sturm and her experiences more accurately.

Sometimes Ilona Sturm just wants to grab a beer and hang out. But ironically, the older she鈥檚 gotten, the harder it is for the to make plans with other people.

Subscribe to the SA国际传媒 Daily

One of her friends prefers to stay in and watch TV alone while another one has a significant other so she only makes time for date nights.

So, when Sturm is in the mood for a casual beer, she goes alone to or and brings her drawing pad along. For a writer and artist, she says, “it is critical to enjoy being alone.”

鈥淚鈥檓 57, but I still think like a 30 year old,鈥� Sturm said on a recent morning over the phone. 鈥淕od help the folks that are not artists and don鈥檛 have the inner resources to [be alone].鈥�

Sturm embodies what we鈥檝e seen as we鈥檝e delved into this topic for our Loneliness In Tech Series: first, that loneliness is a feeling to be managed, not necessarily combatted. Second, that in order to better understand isolation, we need to be open to being vulnerable and not confuse likes with affirmation and conversation.

However, although she鈥檚 following these rules, Sturm still struggles to have genuine interactions on a whim.

This leads us to our final topic for the series: Tech stepping in to make face-to-face interactions more human.

Face To Face

For some startups, there鈥檚 a in charging people to meet other people. After all, the addressable market of lonely individuals is quite high.

, for example, is a platform that connects women over the age of 50 for social events. It was part of the most recent batch, and it was started by and . Revel membership is currently free for inaugural members, but Marrone said members will eventually join for a $15 a month subscription.

Marrone, on stage at Y Combinator, said there are 50 million women over 50 in the United States alone. She added that these women have time, money, and energy to spend but nowhere to go.

鈥淚t鈥檚 all about meeting each other in the real world, because we know that that鈥檚 how people of all ages form the strongest connections,鈥� said Wahr. She added that all of her the organized gatherings are 10 women or less to keep them intimate.

As for events available, think decluttering workshops, printmaking workshops, a picnic by Lake Merritt, or, in Sturm鈥檚 case, a tour at the Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco.

Using Revel鈥檚 platform, Sturm hosted a tour at the museum on a recent Monday and four people showed up, including herself. The platform has been live in the Bay area for a month.

Other startups in this category include MyScoot, also a Y Combinator startup, which lets hosts throw parties and charge for attendance, and of course MeetUp, which was bought by WeWork in 2017 for $200 million.

But friendship requires more than just showing up, it means being genuine once you get there.

鈥淚f you are older and you go to a random meetup that isn鈥檛 super focused鈥� that鈥檚 the kind of vulnerability that will not pay off,鈥� said Sturm.

Inner Self

Taking a step back, in order for a community to be vulnerable, might come down to individual mindfulness to set the tone.

聽is a startup which sports the tagline 鈥渨e make being thoughtful easy.鈥� It鈥檚 defined as a 鈥渧irtual relationship assistant鈥� and helps users stay in touch with friends and families.

On the company鈥檚 website, it says that we鈥檙e all disconnected. 鈥淐onstant availability gives the illusion of connection. Online shopping, on-demand streaming, and working from home all corrode opportunities for human interaction,鈥� the website reads.

To join, users complete a 15 minute 鈥渙nboarding chat鈥� where the company learns about you and important relationships in your life. Then you pick how much time you want to invest in those relationships every day, week, and month. The assistant sends reminders such as call home regularly, chat with a friend even if there鈥檚 a time difference, and plan a birthday gift in advance. It charges $20 dollars a month, .

There鈥檚 also that encourages 鈥渄igital wellness鈥� by having users spend more time away from their phones. Users can track the progress of phone usage while studying, sleeping, or working, said , the co-founder and CEO of the startup.

Flipd has also started partnering with wellness content creators to host music, sleep stories, and meditation. Other startups that help with the latter category include , , and Wave.

Harvey thinks Flipd can help with loneliness.

鈥淲hen you’re constantly reminded that everyone on the internet is living their best lives and you’re at home scrolling on the couch, the best thing you can do for yourself is to get off your phone and engage your mind and body in another activity,鈥� she said.

A Mix Of Both

, a community manager with , thinks both in-person interaction and mindfulness apps aren鈥檛 the perfect solution. Yet.

While at the University of Pennsylvania, Bian started hosting gatherings for strangers to meet each other in three hour blocks. The time period was key: 鈥淚 think you need at least three hours for people to physically feel away, and create the energy of an alternate environment.鈥�

While Bian thinks startups like and Revel are helpful, she also said they aren鈥檛 a 鈥渃omprehensive enough solution for building a socially connected future.鈥�

鈥淭hese companies do an amazing job for creating opportunities for connection, but what鈥檚 lacking is having real connection be a value.鈥� Part of the reason, Bian said, is rooted in American culture.

We need a 鈥渧alue system that is about connecting and have connection be a value,鈥� she said.

In her observation, community leaders should be responsible for facilitating that value.

鈥淚f we鈥檙e talking tactically, [it鈥檚 about] the lighting, the mood, the sound, and the ambiance when you first step in the room,鈥� Bian said. The first 10 minutes sets the tone for how the conversation should go.

Circling back to Sturm. She鈥檚 been thinking of moving to Europe for the more casual culture. Until that day, however, she鈥檚 optimistic.

鈥淟oneliness is one way of interpreting an empty feeling,鈥� Sturm said. 鈥淏ut that empty feeling can also be turned into something that is very meaningful, if we don鈥檛 stop at the initial feeling of it.鈥�

Featured image by聽

As the famed early-stage accelerator ups the amount of startups it invests in each year, India has become a focus. In this summer鈥檚 batch, 12 startups were from India, compared to five from the same time period a year prior. Applications to the accelerator from India increased by 50 percent, too.

, a partner at YC and the previous founder of Homejoy, even lived in India for a month prior to the pitch day to 鈥済et a sense of what the Indian consumer was like.鈥� Then, Cheung and three other YC partners conducted 140 interviews with Indian startups from 鈥檚 headquarters, a YC alum backed by Facebook. About 8 percent of those startups were accepted.

Before we learn more about those startups, here鈥檚 a teaser for you: Cheung told me that India, like China, was previously known to 鈥渃opy cat things that worked in the U.S.鈥�

鈥淏ut now they鈥檙e distinctly not doing that, they鈥檙e coming out with these big products,鈥� she said during a phone call Wednesday.

Now, onto the big products.

The WhatsApp Wave

During YC Demo Day, a few founders cited WhatsApp as part of their business strategy, specifically its growth and influence within India.

wants to leverage WhatsApp to match low-skilled and skilled workers with on-demand companies that need labor. , the founder of the company, said WhatsApp has 400 million users in India, and 96 percent of smartphone users in the region use WhatsApp.

Cheung said that she always tells startups to 鈥渢ake advantage of what [is] in front of them.鈥� Since WhatsApp is allowing people to build atop them right now, now is the time to leverage the platform for customer acquisition, she added.

In some ways, it鈥檚 a gamble. Building your startup atop a social media platform is risky. At any given time, the company can stop sharing access to its API. It could, in theory, kill your business on a whim and get away with it. The concept isn鈥檛 crazy: , and Google鈥檚 also impacted competitors.

But Krishna assured me that he鈥檚 working with WhatsApp 鈥減retty closely鈥� to secure a solid relationship. If not, the 12 million on-demand workers, and 320 low-skilled workers, could lose the app.

also said during its presentation that it would acquire customers through to build out its online pharmacy in India, citing the messaging app鈥檚 prominence in the area.

Cheung said she thinks we鈥檙e going to see a 鈥渇lood of really big startups built on top of WhatsApp鈥� but that startups need to not be reliant on just one platform. Diversification equals protection.

The Indian Consumer

One surprise from pitch day in Bangalore, according to Cheung, was that Indian startups were straying from a once-normal stereotype: Global SaaS companies.

鈥淭hey鈥檙e building for the Indian consumer,鈥� she said.

Take , for example. The company is connecting gas stations to truck drivers, and delivers fuel directly to customers.聽CEO told me that he is offering an app to truck drivers that allows them to request gas delivery. There鈥檚 a live dashboard at their fingertips, he said.聽Plus, Gupta said, MyPetrolPump is helping everyone avoid fuel theft.

鈥淔uel theft happens here,鈥� he told me. 鈥淵ou鈥檒l find that drivers collude with operators of gas stations in India.鈥� MyPetrolPump managing that transaction will help create balance, he hopes. The company raised $1.6 million last month from Y Combinator and . Now, Gupta said he is working to raise a $10 million Series A round.

Subscribe to the SA国际传媒 Daily

Another consumer-friendly startup is . It wants to make podcasts more accessible and understandable to people around India. On stage during Demo Day, a co-founder said that half a billion people are coming online in India鈥攂ut there is no podcast platform that works well there.

鈥淪potify has no traction, and the only available audio content is on YouTube, which gives broken audio,鈥� the company said. So, they鈥檙e working with 2,500 creators to bring audio in every Indian language to the populace.

And with that we鈥檒l step back and take a balcony view of YC鈥檚 tagline: 鈥淢ake something people want.鈥� It seems from this recent crop of startups, that鈥檚 exactly what India’s entrepreneurs have been doing.

Illustration Credit:聽