We closed our seed round last month. EUR 6M. Here's what the process looked like from inside it, specifically from the perspective of a technical founder who had never raised before.
What investors actually asked
The technical questions were easier than expected. Investors who focus on deep tech or enterprise software had done enough deals to ask good questions about architecture, competitive moat, and data strategy. The conversations were substantive and the preparation paid off.
The questions that were harder: the go-to-market questions. How do you sell to enterprise brands? What's the procurement process? Who is the economic buyer? What's the pilot-to-contract conversion rate?
We could answer all of these because we had done the 50 conversations before building. But the pattern is consistent: technical founders often prepare for the technical diligence and underestimate the commercial diligence. The investors evaluating us cared about both equally.
What mattered
The letters of intent mattered more than any technical demonstration. We had three pilots in progress and eight original LOIs. The investors could see that real organizations with real budgets had engaged with the problem and found our approach credible enough to pilot.
This is the thing I'd tell any technical founder before raising: get proof of demand before you go to investors. Not revenue, necessarily. But something a skeptic can't dismiss as "the founders think customers will want this." Actual engagement from actual organizations in your target market.
The patent application mattered. Not because it confers protection yet, but because it signals that we've done the work to understand what's defensible about our approach. Investors in competitive spaces want to see moat.
The team mattered most. The questions about the technical team were thorough. Both technical co-founders have production CV experience. The combination of that experience with the domain knowledge from the 50-conversation process was the story that worked.
What nobody cared about
The slide deck design. We spent time on it. Nobody mentioned it.
The financial model beyond year two. Everyone acknowledged it was directional. Nobody treated it as a binding commitment.
Most of the material in the appendix that we prepared for anticipated questions. Half of those questions never came up.
The process mechanics
We ran a structured process: identified target investors, prioritized by fit and likely check size, and ran conversations in parallel rather than sequentially. Sequential fundraising is slower and produces worse outcomes because you're negotiating without alternatives.
The term sheet negotiation was shorter than I expected. When you have multiple interested parties, the negotiation compresses. Both sides know the alternatives exist.
The legal process took longer than the investment process. Allow more time than you think you need for the close.
What I'd do differently
Start the investor relationship earlier. The investors who moved fastest were the ones who had been tracking us for months through the ecosystem. Cold outreach to investors who have never heard of you is hard. Warm relationships that develop before you're actively fundraising are much easier to convert.
Have a lead lined up before you announce you're raising. Running a process without a lead is possible and we did it, but having a credible lead investor changes the dynamics of every subsequent conversation.
Where the money goes
Team. Data infrastructure. The second and third pilots. The patent prosecution. Not much else at this stage.
The round buys time to prove the model performs in production at scale. That's what a seed round is for.
With gusto, Fatih.