I've looked at thee interesting models and know some of the people who run them.  I've met with a couple teams that came out.  I thought Slater was at the far end of the "you-don't-always-need-$10M" spectrum, but these models are as far out as possible!  They rely on incredibly large numbers of applicants and projects, with a high failure rate, but some exits.  I would think they would be HIGHLY dependent on the quality of the people promising coaching, both to get good applicants, and then to produce good coaching.  Seems like the money has almost nothing to do with it, right?  That's pretty much the thesis.

 The Slater Fund started with a low money, high touch thesis, but has been moving the other direction, funding fewer companies more deeply, and trying to attract great teams with that thesis.

That doesn't make me negative on the whole strategy -- I actually think it could be a clever way to attract a broad array of deals if executed correctly.

I'm wondering what the definition of success would be?

Thorne