Flowlie

Al Wolf

Flowlie is amazing, brilliant and I think it's really useful for startup founders and fundraising can now be faster and safer. Thank you Flowlie!

10 months ago

Dejon Bergstrom

Best of luck

11 months ago

Conner Jacobs

This is great stuff!

1 year ago

Hazel Altenwerth

Interesting way to stay regimented

1 year ago

Chaim Schuppe

Congrats, Mark and team! Too bad I missed this on launch day. This looks useful to help founders on their fundraising journey which can be intimidating for starters. I'll check it out in depth and hopefully subscribe soon.

1 year ago

Enrico Wiza

Flowlie is a amazing product, best of luck for this.

1 year ago

Sedrick Hirthe

Good job!

1 year ago

Marcus Macejkovic

Very important product for the continued diversification of the PE/VC manager world.

1 year ago

Dorcas Parker

congrats on a launch! Feeling like I might be an end user of your service!

1 year ago

Enrico Wiza

@mark_bugas Hey Flowlie team! 🚀 Fundraising Hub looks like a lifesaver for founders navigating the funding maze. 🌐 How does the AI-powered deck analyzer provide improvement suggestions? Is it based on industry benchmarks or tailored to each founder's style? 🤖

1 year ago

Burley Collins

Congratulations on the launch

1 year ago

Kenneth Corwin

Looks so clutch! Thanks for simplifying the fundraising game. 

1 year ago

Quincy Medhurst

The biggest issues I find with fund raising, in order, are: 1. A complete disregard by funders to properly define what stage they will fund. For example, a pre-seed is just that, pre-seed. This has one interpretation - essentially paper napkin, pre-MVP, pre-revenue. I would expect some sort of traction such as customer surveys, use cases, financial and competitive landscape, etc. But in literal terms, BEFORE you plant a seed (the build process), you need dirt and water (funding). At seed stage, it's planted (built). Now you need to nurture it (mo' money). Following that are the alphabet rounds. This makes sense, right? My point in all this is your platform should very clearly categorize/define rounds from the onset, or it's useless (for me at least). And for that, you'll need the magic wand because you'll have to find a method (a list of Q's for investors, I suppose) to determine who is what. 2. While investors typically ask for (if not require) "coachable" founders, the investor world needs coachable funders. I've come across just one funder who stated in a response, "we could be wrong". That's great - that one time. Funders have this belief that because they've read through a thousand pitch dicks, they've seen it all. They've seen a bunch. That's undeniable. And that becomes monotonous. The wall (actually, blinders) pop-ups even faster when the founder has erred, not lied, erred. Their attitude is, "we don't have time to correct a founder's mistake". I get it. But funders should know better - starting up a start-up is very, very difficult. If the premise of the start-up is worthwhile, then it's just as worthwhile to set aside this presumed error until there is clarity. What I suggest here is develop and include a set of checks and balances questions for funders indicating if they have an internal method to avoid errors and false assumptions they make. If not, that to me is an indication they are not coachable (aka, willing to learn), thus won't be much of a partner later on. The automation part of all this is, a couple of little boxes to tick off that both these issues have been addressed.

1 year ago

Marcelo Prohaska

Congrats on the launch @mark_bugas

1 year ago

Hillard Halvorson

This product is very amazing

1 year ago