title: "Fundraise office hours — fund-a + alice-example" type: meeting slug: meetings/2026-04-10-fundraise-fund-a date: 2026-04-10 attendees: [you, alice-example, fund-a]

Fundraise OH — fund-a / alice-example

Office hours session with alice-example (acme-example) and fund-a partner. Topic: acme-example's planned Series A close in late 2026.

Discussion

alice-example walked through the new metrics. Retention curves look strong across two cohorts. She thinks net retention crosses meaningful threshold by Q3 if the current expansion motion holds. I pushed back on the geography assumption — the LA market is going to be slower than the SF data implies, and I don't think she's modeling that correctly yet.

fund-a partner asked about competitive dynamics. alice-example argues acme-example's vertical depth means they win the workflow even when horizontal competitors enter the space. I'm not sure I buy that — there are at least two well-funded competitors I'd take seriously, and one of them ships fast. Worth grading this claim against actual win-rate data in 12 months.

Discussion of pricing. I think the current pricing leaves money on the table for the top-decile customer cohort. alice-example pushed back — she wants to grow into the pricing rather than annoy early adopters. Probably the right call for now, but I'd want to revisit by end of year.

Takes

I bet acme-example closes the Series A on the timeline she's projecting (Q4 2026). Conviction ~0.7. Geography risk is the main downside.
I bet fund-a leads the round. They've been signaling interest for two quarters and the partner showed up to OH. Conviction ~0.75.
I predict the competitive thesis (vertical depth wins) will look weaker in 12 months than it does today. Conviction ~0.55 — genuinely uncertain.
alice-example's pricing instinct is right for the current stage. Low conviction — I'd revise depending on how the next cohort behaves.

Followups

Revisit the geography model in 90 days.
Get the win-rate numbers vs the two named competitors when they exist.