Always remember that the VC/angel investor's goal is to flip the company for profit at the first available opportunity. Crowd funding success looks good to these suckers further down the money chain.
They even say that on their website ![Grin ;D](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
http://sktainnopartners.com/overview/
SKTA Innovation Accelerator seeds and accelerates core technology startups to create and manage the essential data center. The Innovation Accelerator matches entrepreneurs with industry leading strategic partners and provides initial funding up to $1M as a combination of working capital, state-of-the-art facilities, development tools and professional services (e.g. legal and financial). Entrepreneurs concentrate on developing their technologies, while strategic partners and venture capitalists access lower-risk investment opportunities and shorter time-to-money horizons.
That makes sense for a real working truthfully marketed product. But for something that is more media hype than reality, wouldn't they be flipping a lemon? Or does everyone just want a piece of the money train to milk the public for as long as possible until the crash?
Well, they are still selling electronic rust inhibitors for cars after 30 years and fleecing the public so I guess this money train will go a long way. I may as well invest!
Sadly, when the proverbial train has crashed or ship has sailed, who has actually profited all that time? The engineer or the non-engineering executives who run the business and marketing and collect 100x + compensation? Who is rewarded the most? Who gets laid off first? I'm sure we all have stories about how well-meaning engineers have been treated and how innovations or quality improvement gets squashed by executive management due to cost reduction and profitability concerns, simply to pad their own grossly inflated salaries and bonuses. Pillage the company for as long as you can and move on... rewards related to performance? Sure, save money by reducing quality and cutting engineering staff, increase profit and get rewarded. Then when your product has turned into a pile of turd, it's too late and the execs have already made millions and retired, and a new pile are waiting at the door to "save" the company.
I am sure we could start a thread on this... but back to Batteriser. This company is clearly a business executive management directed enterprise and I wonder what engineers are actually being hired and whether they have any good chance of actually reaping the rewards of this venture. I guess it depends on who is taking the investment risk and who has the best skills at making money (even the most brilliant engineer without marketing and business skills would not necessarily make a hugely successful company... We need the Steve Jobs for the Wozniak). The corollary is also true... A mediocre engineer can, with the help of good business execs, can make a pile of money.
So who deserves the biggest reward? The engineer or the business person who is brilliant in their own way of marketing and selling?
One final thought... How many of us, even well-meaning engineering and scientist types, given the opportunity, would do the same thing? The University professors and engineers figure they have their shot at making a pile of money and help their lives and family, and make multiple years worth of salary compared to their current jobs. When the developer of Minecraft received a bid from Microsoft (was it $3 billion?) did he pause and think "oh no, I won't sell to this evil corporation"? He got a lot of backlash from the Minecraft community but he did what he had to. I bet many of us who want better lives for our families would not blink at being on the receiving end of a pile of money, even if it was from a product or service that is not harming people and at the very worst just useless at doing what it claims.