First, a bit of context.

The tide of good times and irrational exuberance in startup land is down, and every other week, we are discovering those who are swimming naked. It’s one week, one recklessness or worse, getting revealed.

Yesterday, I shared a post on X that said founders should understand the startup game is long and when they see other founders struggling, their focus should be on learning lessons and not on gloating – directly or indirectly. Especially as they are in the arena. I have seen too many spectators of yesterday became the spectacle of today.

Enter the dense post.

[SIC] “But its weird how I only see OO speak out a times like this when its certain “openly” shady people involved”

But irony is not dead.

The author of that post, Jude Dike, runs a startup called Get Equity. Last year there was a report in Wee Tracker “GetEquity’s Game Of Fast And Loose Makes Founders And Funders Jittery” which attacked his and the startup’s credibility.

Guess who came out swinging for one of the “openly” shady people 

The author, Henry, received the rest of my opinions via WhatsApp.

Though we’ve engaged, I do not know Jude personally, and did not consult him before or after appearing to come to his defence. So why did I do so?

It is what I do. I bat for founders, especially when I believe they’ve been wronged.

And in cases where I am not “defending” founders, you see me absent in public conversations where they are being (rightfully) pummelled. 

But why?

Because, I am biased & supporting founders fits my agenda.

What agenda?

If you go to my about page, you see where I tried to articulate my agenda.

“My thinking goes thus; for the black man to be fully liberated, we’d need successful black nations. For that to happen, economic capital and political power will need to aggregate and be retained in the hands of the most enlightened black folks in black nations. I strongly believe Nigeria’s techosystem has the largest concentration of people that can make this liberation happen. My agenda is to help realise this as a participant, supporter and activist.”

Naive? Perhaps. But it what it is.

To me, founders are a special breed, the best of them see a problem and solve it. That something doesn’t exit is not enough to stop them. Every progress we see in society has been made because of those who decided to go against the grain. If the problem of Nigeria – or the black world would ever be solved, I strongly believe it will be by this special breed. So I’ll keep supporting them.

Does that mean founders are flawless and should be given carte blanche to do anything? Not at all. You never see me stopping any founder from being investigated or put on the front burner. I’ll publicly come to their defence if I think any attack is inaccurate or unfair, and in most cases, privately admonish and advise the founder on how I believe they should make amends for their errors. My biased self would rather scold in private and defend or ignore in public. And when they do right, I am happy to effusive in my public and private praise.

These days, the tide of my founder friendliness is waning. In recent years, we’ve seen, quite frankly, atrocious, irresponsible and in many cases, illegal behaviour by founders. Though I believe they have been enabled by careless investing, they are ultimately responsible for their actions. In speaking to a number of tier one African VCs and investors, I have told them I will soon be the champion of “founder unfriendliness”. 

Being founder friendly should not stop one from being firm, because if left to run amok, some of the self-destructive behavior can get to scale which works against my agenda. So there, I put my agenda first.

So you see me writing stuff like this

Whenever I support founders or players in Nigeria’s tech ecosystem, and they are effusive in their thanks, I tell them they are merely beneficiaries of my agenda. I have done this since October 2010 when I held the first startup meet in Lagos, and I plan to keep working towards it for as long as I can.

I am pleased to see more reporting being done by our tech media and as more light keeps being shone on such an important segment, the good tales get reported with the same glee as the bad, and the sum of it all leads to the progress of the techosystem.

On the net, good & responsible founders far surpass the bad or mislead eggs. So I am careful not to optimize my behaviour based off the few bad eggs at the expense of the good, least it affects me achieving my aims.

When I am done and gone, I don’t care if I am known as good or bad, but I want it to be clear to all that Oo tried hard to be consistent, and was mostly successful in being so.

Since then, every investor tailor worth their Twitter needle has sewn a thread about their thoughts ;).

Two popular ones I linked to above have come to similar conclusions, which more than a few people agree with – “this is kinda good for the founders but it is bad for early-stage investors, especially those in emerging markets”.

But is it?

I’d like to analyse this as someone that knows quite a bit about the early-stage investing ecosystem in Nigeria, one of the key emerging markets of the world and home to more than a few YC portfolio companies (>30). I’m also a stakeholder in a couple YC funded startups on a personal level, and via Ventures Platform which has an overlap of more than 15 companies with YC.

A Quick Overview

First, a rehash of the deal.

1. YC gives $125K for 7%. This fairly straightforward deal gives the startup a valuation of $1.785M.
2. YC gives an additional $375K in an uncapped SAFE, with a Most Favoured Nation clause. This applies to SAFEs or investments signed after the YC agreement (take note of the after, it’s key to analyzing the why and the fairness of the agreement)

[A SAFE – Simple Agreement for Future Equity is an agreement that allows you to invest in a startup with the equity it purchases defined at a future priced financing event. Typically a Series A. 

A SAFE capped at $X means the maximum value of the investment would be at $X. An uncapped SAFE doesn’t have that defined valuation restriction, but usually has others like a discount, or in this new YC agreement, an MFN clause.]

Why did YC insert this new clause?

I’ll quote the announcement:

“It will remove the immediate pressure to fundraise and accept less than favorable terms”

How kind! Lol.

It’s true. But it doesn’t answer why. If it was mainly altruistic, it would have been optional but it isn’t. 

YC is not a charity, it’s a business.

To understand why I think they made the move, you have to understand what I call the YC Bump, the YC Premium and the YC Arbitrage.

The YC Bump:  This applies if you are a founder or an investor that invested in the startup below a valuation of the $1.785M which the initial deal carries. I have seen many founders go from not being able to afford 2 Million Naira and seeking sub $300K valuation to paper USD millionaires overnight (Hi Shola!). Once you enter YC, it doesn’t matter if you are an idea only, you are now $1.785M.

The YC Premium: Once you are through the 3-month YC program, your startup can raise money at a range of $8M – $30M valuation (for emerging market companies. FINTECHS skew to the higher end of the range). That’s a massive Bump from 3 months ago. And a bloody Premium for local investors that saw you 3 months ago, crawling for a $2M valuation. One man’s bump is another man’s premium.

The YC Arbitrage: Inbetween the initial bump (entering YC valuation) and premium (YC demo day valuation), lies the arbitrage. What is not commonly known about the YC $8-$30M raise is, that amount is what the last cheques come in at. So a company that ends up raising $1.5M at a $15M valuation, probably took the first $225K at $6M valuation cap, the next $400K at $10M, $475 at $13M and the last $400K at $15M val cap.

The reason for that is, you need to build momentum when fundraising. Too many investors are looking for others to go first before they put in money. As a founder, it is a bit unnerving not to have commitments leading up to demo day, so the early bird discount is used to get the momentum going. 

In the past few years, a lot of funds have built their entire strategy around this. They contact YC companies while in the program, give them $225K at 3-5x on their YC entry valuation, and watch that do an extra 50%-100% in a few weeks on Demo Day. 

Sweeeet! For the arbitrage investor. Niiiice for the founder. Hmmm… for YC who thinks “I am responsible for this bump!”

It is important to note that before now, YC also followed on investing in any of their startups that went ahead to raise a Series A. But what this meant is that YC waited until the company they helped succeed became really expensive again to buy more equity.  

As my people say: who be mumu?

The implication and what’s next

With the Most Favored Nation clause, YC is putting another $375K at the best terms you get after you go through their accelerator. This means, if you planned to stagger your post YC raise, you must add $375K to the money you collect at the first step.

Using the same example,  let’s compare both scenarios assuming a startup needs to raise $600K.

Pre new YC deal: You would have sold 7.7% of your company for a total of $625K. i.e first $225K at $6M, the next $400K at $10M.

Post new YC deal: You would have sold 10% of your company for a total of $600K. i.e first $225K at $6M + YC’s compulsory $375K at the $6M valuation.

[There is the argument that the startup will no longer have to raise a discounted round since they already have YC’s $375K. So the desperation that would have required the startup to stagger their raise from $6M would disappear. In that case they could raise it all ($600K) at $10M. Meaning 6% only will be sold.]

How will it affect startup fundraising dynamics?

Startups will no longer be ok giving a discount to first movers because of the equity dilution implication. The arbitrage investors will no longer be excited to pursue the strategy as the arbitrage window is essentially closed. Similarly, the investors that need to see investing momentum before committing will no longer see the momentum and will not count the $375K from YC as proof of momentum.

So what gives?

Local Nigerian investors have been grumbling quite a lot about the premium they get to pay post-YC. To be fair, the cost of capital (and the opportunity cost of capital) for Nigerian investors is not the same as their US counterparts. This would limit the participation of local angels post YC. 

I very much subscribe to local investors on the cap table, I usually tell founders, “if Goddy hold your FINTECH licence, no be Michael go fit save you o”. Moving forward, there are two choices for local investors and founders who value local investors on their cap table. Olumide, a prolific Nigerian investor put it best.

My concluding thoughts

I think the move by YC though unfavourable to (mostly US based) arbitrage investors and a subset of early emerging market investors, is quite understandable.

If you are an emerging market investor, you should not wait for YC, a firm far away in Silicon Valley to show commitment to a startup before you do. So with this, I see the serious local investors investing with more conviction.

The risk to YC is that that conviction would mean many local investors ok with circumventing YC entirely. “If all you need to raise an A is the $500K YC gives you, we can give that to you too, and then handshake with the foreign larger investors. No need to go through YC”

The foreign investors would similarly, as Balaji likes to say, go direct! No need to wait for YC, go directly to the early-stage emerging market funds and investors. 

Remember, one obvious sell for YC was “go through us and in 3 months, we will put you in front of teaming investors, which will give you the $1.5M+ you need to get to Series A”. If they are now saying $500K is all that is needed in the medium term thereby deemphasizing demo day, investors will try to go it all the way without YC.

YC would argue that they bring more than large valuations. That they help the founders build what people want! It is that, which brings money at huge valuations and great. I quite agree! I have seen it so many times. But that value is intangible, thereby mostly unseen.

How you pitch yourself is important. How people understand your pitch is importanter.

Prediction: before summer 2024, there will be a review of this new deal. What will change? Your guess is as good as mine.

PS:
Ha! This post is getting a lot of traction with early-stage investors, especially in emerging markets. If you’re an ACTIVE (> 5 deals in 2021) early-stage investor that bets with conviction, and looking for good African deal flow BEFORE they get into YC, feel free to holla! oo@techcircle (dot) ng.

After I published my post pointing out the hypocrisy of Big Tech Media in the diversity in tech debate, I got a few grunts of acknowledgement from a couple of the publications covered. Afterwards, these journalists sat on what was surely a newsworthy story. Why? I don’t know.

Outside of journalists banding together in silence, the post was well-received, but deep inside, I sensed people wanted a data size larger than just five Big Tech Media publications which I had used. So here is a more comprehensive data bank of 982 individuals across 14 publications. It’s a collaboration between myself and Balaji. It includes an estimated race and gender breakdown of those that determine what we read about tech, along with the code snippets used in collating the data as well as the raw data itself.

Read the study, it includes code samples.

Since Big Tech Media hasn’t published an official diversity report of their organizations, the study was done using publicly available information on Twitter and cross-checked with Twitter lists of tech journalists. It uses a few different methods for data collection, and a few different methods to determine race and gender, and gets similar results each time. The data set is open source, so if there are any errors please submit a correction. However, the best bet would be for each tech media corporation to follow the lead of tech companies and release a public diversity report.

Highlight of the results:

• Big Tech Media is ~ 80% White
• Big Tech is ~51% White

Again, you should take a moment and read it: https://techjournalismislessdiversethantech.com.

Next Steps

Big Tech Media corporations should do the right thing and release the demographic breakdown of their employee base. There is even a federal requirement to file the form EEO-1 Survey which breaks this data down.

Acknowledgements. I’ve been writing on this topic for ten years, and wrote about it again in early July on my own accord. After 22 major tech publications refused to publish my analysis (I posit collusion), @balajis graciously RT’d the post and put up a Bitcoin prize for people to follow up on my work. This funded the data analysis which you see at https://techjournalismislessdiversethantech.com/. I asked that my $1000 in BTC be donated in its entirety to Dev Careers, a non-profit that helps Africans get into tech via the provision of Laptops, Internet Data and Training.

One week ago, I published an article about the role of Big Tech Media in the Diversity Debate. The crux of the post could be summarized thus:

• Big Tech Media has rightfully played an influential role in holding Big Tech companies and Venture Capitalists accountable for their lack of racial diversity;
• However, although Big Tech Media has an oversized impact in influencing diversity in tech, Big Tech Media itself is anything but racially diverse. 

I released the first diversity report of 5 Big Tech Media organizations to back up my claim.

You should read it if you haven’t

The Conspiracy of Silence

I completed my post on June 19th, and for over 2 weeks, I couldn’t get any of the 22 media companies I contacted (see Appendix) to publish it. Understandably so: you don’t expect one to give you their platform to criticize themselves or friends.

On Monday, July 6th, I published the post, and the response from the public was bonkers. Thousands of tweets, replies and spending quite sometime on the front page of Hackernews. I had experienced nothing like it (although I prepared by setting up CloudFlare). Left and right, people from Lagos to London to Silicon Valley were engaging on Twitter. It felt good, and I thought to myself “thankfully, this won’t end up like my similar post of 2015 which sunk haplessly like the Bloomberg Presidential Campaign”.

I waited for responses from tech media publications… 1, 2, 3 …7  hours and nothing. I went to bed as it was long past midnight here in Lagos, Nigeria.

The next day, the report got its first Big Tech Media acknowledgement from Jessica Lessin of The Information:

Then almost 24 hours after my post Matthew Panzarino of Techcrunch replied:

Later, I heard from Kara Swisher:

Do you notice anything?

Well, they follow the same template: disparage my data then mumble something about “we can do better”.

Is there a WhatsApp or Signal group where they coordinated their responses? Are they colluding against accountability? I don’t know. What I do know is this:

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action”

Auric Goldfinger (in Ian Fleming’s novel, Goldfinger)

Until now (over ONE WEEK later), I am yet to receive any correction of data or an appropriate response to the points my post raised. I trust my data on the Diversity of Big Tech Media, which is why I linked to the source.

Allyson Shontell of Business Insider and David Pierce of Protocol are yet to even acknowledge the post. 

When these journalists and publications publish their own Diversity Reports of various companies and sectors, those reports are acknowledged. Why is this different?

When these accomplished journalists try to hold those they deem powerful to account, like Facebook’s Zuckerberg, Twitter’s Dorsey, Amazon’s Bezos, Tesla’s Musk, Google, Apple, etc., would they accept a response of coordinated silence from them? I don’t think so. Neither would I, as I keep trying  to hold them to account.  

Where Are the Other Media Houses and Journalists?

Even though I reached out to other media houses, I still have not seen them make any comment, or  report on what surely, is newsworthy.  Interestingly, Axios published a diversity report on sports media on the same day as mine. However, the response to that report hasn’t been silence.

From the New York Times to Washington Post, Wired to Bloomberg, etc. There has been total silence. This is unusual, as even routine diversity reports and social media memes are deemed newsworthy by these institutions. So I don’t get the total silence about a report on the Media. 

What is going on?!

Speaking truth to the Power, that Speaks Truth to Power

Ironically, the protests from the George Floyd execution that led to this round of diversity debate were about holding the police who are an institution that holds the society to account, to account.

To my naïve mind, the media are the police force of conscience. The journalists, the police. Here are my questions:

• Who holds the media and journalists to account? 
• Are the media and journalists above reproach? 
• Are the media and journalists exempt from accountability?
• If no one, is this right?

I expect full coverage of the points I raised in my previous post, and I am available to be contacted and to speak on the record (ositanwoye@gmail / @OoTheNigerian).

I know how it may seem to these powerful media companies: “Who does this unknown African living in Nigeria think he is, to believe we should be accountable to him?” Well, it is not about me, it is about the truth. 

We rely on the media; they are very critical to our freedom everywhere. It is why they have special protection, have certain privileges and recognition globally. But like my dad tells me, every right implies a responsibility.

The media should live up to their responsibility and shine the torch of accountability on everyone, even if they have to shine it on themselves.

Appendix

I contacted the following media companies for the 2 weeks before and after I published my previous post, and will do so again after I publish this.

Prelude

I have been writing about Diversity in Tech for over a decade now – a long time. However, my self-published posts have never really got the audience it was targeted at, which is, the Silicon Valley Main Street. This time around, I wanted to do something different with regard to distribution. 

Since I completed this post over two weeks ago, I’ve hawked it as an Op-Ed to ALL main street US (Tech) media – 22 of them. Sadly, but unsurprisingly and understandably, I’ve had no takers. It is a big request to ask anyone, including journalists, to give a dissenting voice an audience, so I have decided to self-publish again, but this time around, I hope the primary intended audience gets to see it and the conversation happens. Abeg (please), share it as you wish me luck holding these very powerful people to account.

Introduction

No thanks to the brutal execution of George Floyd and more importantly, thanks to the persistence of protesters, the conversation about institutional racism in various parts of American life is back to the fore and has been sustained. The tech industry has not been exempted.

As with previous cycles, it has cast blame towards the typical suspects: Big Tech and Venture Capital. And as with previous conversation cycles, one key player in the diversity deficient tech world is wriggling away unscathed, yet again. Silicon Valley Big Tech Media.

Pattern Matching in Tech

Pattern matching is a colloquial terminology in the tech industry that refers to the propensity for established players in tech e.g. Venture Capitalists, taking superficial patterns of successful founders (young white boys who have dropped out of Stanford or Harvard) and using them to determine future investment decisions.

“I can be tricked by anyone who looks like Mark Zuckerberg”

Paul Graham (According to The New York Times)

Though eventually clarified by Paul Graham, that attributed quote articulately captures the spirit of Pattern Matching. Since how one “looks” is one of the obvious patterns one can observe in a human, it is believed that pattern matching disproportionally affects “people of colour” (why do we use this term?).

I have no problem with pattern matching. In psychology it is known as pattern recognition, which is natural and critical for survival. It is how human beings recognise things and make vital decisions quickly, with little data.

My first memory of Pattern Matching was while playing football (the real one) as a kid. The guys with the bow-legged swagger, wearing boots and a shin guard were always picked first. It was almost automatic because they looked like talented footballers. And that’s how I learned to pick my teams. After missing out on some straight legged barefoot talents and picking several kitted-out clowns, I adjusted and used more sensible parameters.

I learned something from that though: Pattern matching is all well and good until it receives contradicting data. It’s all about the data.

The Role of Big Tech Media in Pattern Matching

In the past decade, Big Tech Media has rightfully shone the light on racial inequality in the ranks of Big Corporations and Venture Capital in the tech industry. The Diversity Reports — as they are known, of Big Tech and VC have been published routinely.

The media are very powerful. It is through them we learn and understand the world beyond ourselves. Their importance and power in shaping opinions cannot be overstated as they are very key in providing the data which influences patterns that lead to decisions. 

In Tech, when it comes to personnel, a lot of that data comes in the form of presence. The Big Tech Media controls it all via narrative and coverage in their publications and mega conferences. It is through the media that every player – VCs, Tech Executives, Founders etc learn about the tech world that exists outside of their immediate spheres.

However, when it comes to the diversity in tech debate, I wonder: how have Big Tech Media, the primary opinion shapers of the tech industry, escaped any scrutiny? Then it hit me: when you are busy pointing your torch at others, you forget to point it at yourself.

Since Big Tech Media remains a critical piece if we are to rejig the data to alter diversity-deficient patterns in tech, it’s high-time we shone the light on Big Tech Media.

[RANDOM: Watching the film Hidden Figures made me almost cry. I had absolutely no idea that in the 60s, there were Black women mathematicians and programmers who were good enough to work for the NASA Space Program. Imagine if this was always common knowledge. I can only imagine how many more black folks it would have influenced to take up a career in Computer Science and Technology].

Diversity Report of (Silicon Valley) Big Tech Media

In 2015, I looked at the racial makeup of the largest tech conferences in the world. The results were damning. I wondered how these organisers could be so oblivious. It then occurred to me to check out the people making these decisions, and it was clear why they were colour blind; they didn’t have the right ‘lenses’ i.e., makeup of the editorial/media team, to notice the absence of certain colours.

In this report card, I will look at the racial diversity makeup of both speaker line-ups and the editorial teams of Big Tech Media – who are mostly in Silicon Valley, and contrast their 2015 with today.

The Candidates

TechCrunch

TechCrunch, owned by AOL/Verizon has been the Big Dog of tech startup chronicling and commentary since 2005. More so, they host arguably the largest and most influential startup conference called Disrupt. I have followed TechCrunch since 2007 and experienced the startup evolution through them.

Recode

In the past decade, Recode has evolved from being All Things Digital at WSJ to being Independent to now being a unit at Vox Media. One constant throughout its evolution has been the very formidable Kara Swisher, who is arguably the single most influential person in Big Tech Media. 

The Information

This subscription-based tech publication is high up the list in shaping opinion among Venture Capitalists in Silicon Valley. It was started by Jessica Lessin who is a formidable reporter and an Alumnus of WSJ. They have a VC Diversity Index. 

Business Insider

Based in New York and founded by the great Henry Blodget, Business Insider is a top 3 tech voice in the tech industry.

Protocol

Backed by a bunch of heavyweights, this publication launched this year with a lot of panache. 

How well have they done?

Racial Diversity Report Card of Major US/Silicon Valley Tech Media

Here is the data for this table in spreadsheet format and links to sources.

Solving the Diversity Problem in Silicon Valley Tech

It is good to highlight problems but better to proffer solutions. But first, do these people recognise that there is a problem? Do they want to solve it? 

In 2015 when I wrote my previous post, I had the impression some did. In my Twitter engagement with Kara Swisher after my first post, Aunty Kara gave the patronising response by referencing “the adept use of social media” as a representation of Black in Tech, I offered to engage privately (I threw in my beer diplomacy for good measure). It came to nought.

[Shalaye (Explanation): Aunty Kara took me up on the offer. As agreed, I reached out on 3 subsequent trips to the US and Silicon Valley. After sending about half a dozen emails, initially replied with excuses, Kara went cold and stopped responding. She is not the first Silicon Valley person whose Twitter (public) position contrasts with their private ones, so I haven’t taken it personally. I’d be more than happy to grab that beer if she’s open to it]

If Big Tech companies especially the media wish to change things, they have to first stop being colour-blind and get competent people who have eyes for the blind spots. A deliberate, sincere effort will yield good fruit.

If you are a privileged person in the tech industry who wants to be a true “ally” and see things improve, here are some actionable things to do: 

1. If you are on yet another panel and you notice the absence of accomplished Black tech players, speak up. Make recommendations. I am happy for you to ask me if your black network isn’t that vast. See Appendix (Note: Black folks have great competence about things outside the diversity topic).
2. If you are a VC and you are in on a good deal, try to work with the founder and carve out an allocation for those good black investors that aren’t as opportune to have your network. We all know the deal flow is the koko (main thing). If you want to help, share the deal.
3. If you are recruiting for a senior role in your executive team or board, you can take a book from the NFL beyond Colin Kaepernick’s brave kneeling protest; the Rooney Rule. Just make sure you have a qualified black person in your interview shortlist. That’s not too much of an ask. 

I wrote in an email to my white founder friend recently: I see many organisations “fighting” systemic racism by opening their cheque books. A donation here, a freebie there. It makes them feel good, perhaps. It’s like a retweet but with money.

So, decide if you want to show concern or effect change. I prefer both.

Notes

1. Every company (including Big Tech Media) has the prerogative to invite or cover anyone they like. However, the proprietors of Tech Media cannot play watchmen and feign concern about the diversity in tech debate while their actions are in direct contrast.
2. In this post, I focused on these Tech only media companies because they are embedded in heart of Big Tech, derive all revenue from tech and are extremely influential in the space. It was also difficult to get the break down on the tech coverage of bigger publications like The New York Times and Washington Post
3. I do not think the hypocritical actions of Big Tech Media are deliberate or that there is any deliberate collusion against black people in tech. I think they just don’t care enough to make the extra effort. It is much easier to point and tweet.
4. I would like to commend Y Combinator. They went from Paul Graham implying that accents are a hindrance to fundraising and success to having the largest number black founded portfolio companies in the US. About 15 investments in Nigeria alone. It helps that they have a talented “lens” in their indefatigable CEO, Michael Seibel.
5. TechCrunch’s deficiency in representation hasn’t negatively affected coverage of black founders. Asides kindly covering my first start-up in 2010, They have a columnist, Jake Bright that almost exclusively covers African startups (although from New York).
6. While this post on racial diversity focuses on Black folks in tech ‘cos that’s what I know; I believe it is applicable to Hispanics and Native Americans too.

Appendix

Unlike 2010 when I wondered where the black founders in tech were, today we have countless black folks in every area of tech who have defied the odds to get to the top of the startup world. And they are at the top of the game using any parameter and not “top black”. A random few of my Nigeria-centric favourites tech players that “happen” to be black. I’ll build out this list with time. There also a list of Black owned SaaS being compiled

Shola Akinlade (Paystack), GB Agboola (Flutterwave), Mitchell Elegbe (Interswitch) – Building payment giants in Africa.

Tope Awotona Founder of juggernaut, Calendly

Ime Archibong Head, New Experimentation, Facebook

Iyin Aboyeji: co-founded Flutterwave & Andela – 2 multi hundred million-dollar companies – before he turned 26.

Ekechi, Adia of Migo (Nigeria/Brazil) and Tayo, of Paga (Nigeria/Mexico) are leading multi continental fintech players globally.

Jessica Hope of boutique PR firm, Wimbart, is helping put a lot of African tech founders in global tech conversations.

Michael Seibel co-founded Justin TV/Twitch & SocialCam. CEO, Y Combinator Accelerator.

Temie Giwa of Life Bank literally saving lives. Moving blood and Oxygen via Drones and Bicycles.

Jason Njoku’s IROKO is the last African VoD Iroko standing. A bloody amazing feat considering the amount of money and competition in the space. 

Osarumen Osamuyi of The Subtext and Emeka Ajene AfriDigest are tech analysts from these parts that compare to any from any part of the world. 

Odun Eweniyi is championing a saving culture in over a million Nigerians with PiggyVest.

Gbenga Sesan of Paradigm Initiative is a mammoth when it comes to technology policy. A one man EFF army for the past decade and more.

Funke Opeke of MainOne: the single most impactful individual responsible for broadband penetration in Africa.

Maya Horgan is one of Africa’s prolific investors via $10 million fund Ingressive Capital. At 29, She’s done over a dozen investments with more than half YC alums.

Kola Aina of Ventures Platform with almost 40 start-ups in the portfolio (of which about 10 are Y Combinator companies), is one of the most prolific Angel investors on the African continent.

I’ll start with my “racism pedigree”. I’m a black, Nigeria living, Nigerian man. I get discriminated against online and offline. I have been called NIGGER in UK while taking a stroll in Birmingham; been kicked out of a bar (Mervyn’s Umai Sushi Restaurant & Lounge) in Mountain View, “just because”.

For now, I’ll skip the experience of white folks moving seats in buses/trains, the extra shopping “helpers” when I visit the malls, the frightened looks of white faces when I enter lifts, being singled out to prove I’m in the right place etc.

–

Yet another black man, Gorge Floyd, has been executed by the US Police (ably represented by Derek Chauvin) for the crime of being black. I had initially taken my typical selfish and cowardly approach to these painful killings by not watching the video or reading too much about the story to spare myself the mental anguish that usually comes with it. I decided not to vest myself too emotionally as we know the usual sequence that at the very BEST, it ends with a couple of years behind bars if the Police assassins are even charged in the first place.

But I’ve decided to write this.

[My first exposure to American police executing black men was Amadou Diallo]

George Floyd’s killing is the third of the May trifecta of the black skin being seen and treated as danger. First it was Ahmaud Aubery who was executed while jogging, then Amy Cooper putting out a hit on Christian Cooper (definitely no relation of hers).

Of the three perpetrators in the crimes against those men, the one that scared me the most, wasn’t the white militia that gunned down Ahmaudu, or the Police Executioner that brutally murdered George, but Amy Cooper.

Watching the video of that encounter was bloody chilling. Because we were given a rare behind the scenes of “before” that ends in the “after” that gets covered in the news.

It was a brutal Emmett Tillesque move

Why would Amy, the innocent looking, dog loving, liberal professing, “ally” scare me more than the actual killers, who look like models for a white supremacist magazine?

 Exactly!

“Lord, protect me from my friends; I can take care of my enemies”

Voltaire.

This prayer says it all for me. 

The Amy Coopers are the ones that set things in motion that end up in black men having to prove that they belong to their homes – if they aren’t unfortunate to get killed in the first place. They are quick to report the suspicious looking lad in the hoodie or neighbourhood.  “Amy Cooper” is very key to the equation that ends up with what we see on the internet. 

They are so dangerous because although they play a key role of the sustained racial injustice, you just cannot or would not see them.

“I’m gonna tell them there’s an African American man threatening my life”

Amy Cooper

The black skin being used as a weapon on destruction.

In this particular instance, Amy Cooper was just foolish enough to be recorded saying the *wink* *wink* word. 

Amy Cooper represents those “unknown soldiers” required to keep systemic racism alive, with the twist that they look nothing like danger. 

They are the smiling neighbours that when they sit on jury duty, let the police executioner go. They are the journalists that use mugshots for black victims. They are the cashiers that give a nod to the security to follow that suspicious black shopper. They are the people that looked at me and my co-founder Obemde when we were kicked out of the Mountain View Bar (that one pain me no be small). They are critical to the oppression operation, yet you just can’t see them – or you can, only that they look and act like your allies.

The Derek Chauvins and caught on camera killing Amy Coopers would work to get him a fraudulent autopsy and ensure he gets only a couple of years behind bars at best.

The Dereks can be caught, shamed and hopefully prosecuted or penalized, the Amys? You don’t even see them. 

[Side note: Unlike a lot of my black family and friends who think that the issue is all about Trump and voting him out, I differ in the sense that from Trump/Pence – Warren/Sanders and every white politician in-between, I trust absolutely none as a racial ally, and I don’t think any black person should. Enough of the general free passes for those without skin in the game.]

I have a lot of white friends who I certainly trust and can vouch for when it comes to racial issues. Some of them even have black spouses and kids. However, to other black folk that don’t know them, each one of them is a legitimate, potential accomplice just by being. I may say it is analogous to how women in general say they feel fearful against men even those who internally have the purest of hearts

One man’s meat is another man’s poison, they say. One man’s ally is another’s terror, I say.

Should all black people go about their day, suspicious of all the white folks around? Or should all people that were born white go around feeling guilty?  Definitely not. But I need all of them to examine the role they and their kind may (unwittingly) play in sustaining this system that oppresses the black (wo)man. Particularly in the United States.

Personally, I try to listen to my white friends perspectives and when I disagree, I do so in a non-combative manner since my intent is to let them learn and not retreat.

On the protests, riots and general destruction

The protests generally just “fuck shit up”. You think it’s not working? Well, those that hope it will be over began putting up statements on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th day. Day by day, “neutrals” are crawling out.

I think the best solution is to avoid situations that create an environment for them. Stop killing black people, and stop protecting the murderers with state power. 

Rest in Peace my fallen brothers and sisters. May your deaths not be in vain.

First published on Medium

Why is it very rare for Nigerian startups just like their “company” counterparts to grow or dominate beyond Nigeria?

I could easily answer that we don’t generally think beyond our country but the question is why? and how can we overcome it?

I may have stumbled upon an answer. Hiring.

A conversation with a Facebook executive crystallized it for me.

—

Whenever I interact with a top executive from the big 3 software companies (Facebook, Google, Microsoft) I always ask “when are you opening an engineering office in Nigeria or Africa? Because we are tired of your ‘sales office only’ approach.”

I am usually given canned answers like “we will, soon” or “we have engineering only in USA “ — a lie. This was until Chris Cox broke it down to me.

Paraphrasing him:

“When we open an office in the US, we look for the best talent that can work there. That means we have a pool from the whole of the US to pick from (which is massive). Similar to when we open an engineering office in Ireland/UK — the whole of Europe is the talent pool. It would be hard to open an office where the recruiting pool is only Nigeria or Kenya”

That conversation was an aha moment. World-class companies looking to hire people go for the best, period. Where the talent is situated is immaterial.

—

Nigerian startups have in general placed a mental border on their market and hiring of employees which may have placed a cap on their ambition. They are building Nigerian companies rather than global companies that happen to be domiciled in Nigeria.

I don’t know why this is the case, but what I do know is that there is this mental siege I feel whenever I am in Lagos vs London or the Bay Area. I cannot seem to understand it but it seems once you are “in the abroad”, you see things in the context of “Africa wide” at a minimum. You see the continent as a unit that should be conquered vs seeing at best, Nigeria when you are in Lagos.

I once said, in the US, you struggle to excel. In Nigeria, you struggle to survive.

In San Francisco, it’s heads down, planning world domination. In Lagos, it’s navigating traffic and purchasing diesel that’s top of mind.

—

In a tweet a while ago, I wondered why companies that intend to conquer the continent restrict their hiring pool to at best just Nigeria.

I think hiring outside the “Nigeria bubble” is one thing that companies can do to jump-start thinking outside the bubble. The foreign employees join their bubble and we have a bigger thought space.

Diversity of thought and experience is quite important to build a formidable team — assuming you want to be the very best in a top league.

Asides the additional benefit of diversified thinking that broader diversified hiring can bring, it gives you access to new and unique talent that is not available down the road.

I cannot help but think what would have been if Taxify started out in Nigeria. Three years later with its 25? year old founder and ~2 million dollars raised, it may have been planning to expand in maybe Port Harcourt vs. the real Taxify that operates in 22 cities. You might think this is theoretical but some of know how much “Nigerian Ubers” have raised in trying to win Lagos.

Maybe the fact that Markus comes from Estonia which is a country of 1.4 million people made him realise that being an Estonian company was not a realistic option. Or maybe having Skype and TransferWise act as Northern star Estonian startups that went global motivated him think global from day one?

Would Konga after raising almost $100 million (process that number again) still be a Nigeria only company if it were founded in say Nigeria and London?

—

Andela and Iroko are two companies that epitomise the ‘ideal’ Nigeria based international companies I’m theorizing about. I have decided not to consider Nigerian banks and service companies like Victor Asemota’s Swifta. As for Interswitch, dem be chairman. Andela and Iroko both of which have Nigeria has a very key component of their business and office setup,“looked” International from day one.

Their hiring in their early years reflected their intention. I also think the fact that one of the founders in each of the companies had strong “outside of Nigeria” networks helped put a broader team with a more international outlook.

It may be that their founding and frequency of their founders being outside Nigeria inadvertently played a key role in the early international outlook, so it may be one of the rare correlations that have become causation.

I don’t think it is easy at all. Jason alluded to that and I think it was more difficult for him because he was the “first” of our era. I doubt it should be as difficult if another company is trying to do the same. It is why we should have conversation.

I am actually seeing progress in this “beyond Nigeria” thinking. SureGifts are operating in Nigeria and Kenya. This new batch of Ventures Platform startups has 2 non-Nigerian startups that are, beside the brilliance of their talent, are providing interesting perspectives. I am also seeing it in a Fintech startup that has gone beyond the typical local hiring. they are amazed at the talent that has been so close, yet so far.

In summary, I think Nigerian (and African) startup founders should start thinking globally from day one and their hiring should reflect that from the beginning. The earlier a company does that earlier it avoids being an organization that has been purpose-built for Nigeria and would find it hard to adapt when it needs to.

—

Jesse of OMG Digital walked into the Paystack office yesterday and I got to learn they are fully in Nigeria and Ghana. I’m sure French-speaking Africa will come soon. I was glad.

Just the way I like it.

—

PPS: This post also forms the basis of what I see as the Yaba conundrum. I’ll try to articulate my thinking about that soon.

Why is it very rare for Nigerian startups just like their “company” counterparts to grow or dominate beyond Nigeria? I could easily answer that we rarely think beyond our country but the question is why? And how can we overcome it?

I may have stumbled upon an answer. Hiring.

A conversation with a Facebook executive crystallised it for me.

—

Whenever I interact with a top executive from The Big 3 software companies (Facebook, Google, Microsoft) I always ask “when are you opening an engineering office in Nigeria or Africa? Because we are tired of your ‘sales office only’ approach.”

I am usually given canned answers like “we will, soon” or “we have engineering only in USA” — a lie. This was until Chris Cox broke it down to me.

Paraphrasing him:

“When we open an office in the US, we look for the best talent that can work there. That means we have a pool from the whole of the US to pick from (which is massive). Similar to when we open an engineering office in Ireland/UK — the whole of Europe is the talent pool. It would be hard to open an office where the recruiting pool is only Nigeria or Kenya.”

That conversation was an aha moment. World-class companies looking to hire people go for the best, period. Where the talent is situated is immaterial.

—

Nigerian startups have in general placed a mental border on their market and hiring of employees which may have placed a cap on their ambition. They are building Nigerian companies rather than global companies that happen to be domiciled in Nigeria.

I don’t know why this is the case, but what I do know is that there is this mental siege I feel whenever I am in Lagos vs London or the Bay Area. I cannot seem to understand it but it seems once you are “in the abroad”, you see things in the context of “Africa wide” at a minimum. You see, the continent as a unit that should be conquered vs seeing at best, Nigeria when you are in Lagos.

I once said, in the US, you struggle to excel. In Nigeria, you struggle to survive.

In San Francisco, it’s heads down, planning world domination. In Lagos, it’s navigating traffic and purchasing diesel that’s top of mind.

—

In a tweet a while ago, I wondered why companies that intend to conquer the continent restrict their hiring pool to at best just Nigeria.

I think hiring outside the “Nigeria bubble” is one thing that companies can do to jump-start thinking outside the bubble. The foreign employees join their bubble and we have a bigger thought space.

Diversity of thought and experience is quite important to build a formidable team — assuming you want to be the very best in a top league.

Asides the additional benefit of diversified thinking broader diversified hiring can bring, it gives you access to unique talent that is not available down the road.

I cannot help but think what would have been if Taxify started out in Nigeria. Three years later with its 25? year old founder and ~2 million dollars raised, it may have been planning to expand in maybe Port Harcourt vs. the real Taxify that operates in 22 cities. You might think this is theoretical but some of know how much “Nigerian Ubers” have raised in trying to win Lagos.

Maybe the fact that Markus comes from Estonia which is a country of 1.4 million people made him realise that being an Estonian company was not a realistic option. Or maybe having Skype and TransferWise act as Northern star Estonian startups that went global motivated him to think global from day one?

Would Konga after raising almost $100 million (process that number again) still be a Nigeria only company if it were founded in say Nigeria and London?

—

Andela and Iroko are two companies that epitomises the ‘ideal’ Nigeria-based international companies I’m theorising about. I have decided not to consider Nigerian banks and service companies like Victor Asemota’s Swifta. As for Interswitch, dem be chairman. Andela and Iroko both of which have Nigeria have a very key component of their business and office setup, “looked” International from day one.

Their hiring in their early years reflected their intention. I also think the fact that one founder in each of the companies had strong “outside of Nigeria” networks helped put a broader team with a more international outlook.

Maybe their founding and frequency of their founders being outside Nigeria inadvertently played a key role in the early international outlook, so it may be one of the rare correlations that have become causation.

I don’t think it is easy at all. Jason alluded to that and I think it was more difficult for him because he was the “first” of our era. I doubt it should be as difficult if another company is trying to do the same. It is why we should have conversations.

I am seeing progress in this “beyond Nigeria” thinking. SureGifts are operating in Nigeria and Kenya. This fresh batch of Ventures Platform startups has 2 non-Nigerian startups that are asides the brilliance of their talent, are providing interesting perspective. I am also seeing it in a Fintech startup that has gone beyond the typical local hiring. They are amazed at the talent that has been so close, yet so far.

In summary, I think Nigerian (and African) startup founders should start thinking globally from day one and their hiring should reflect that from the beginning. The earlier a company does that earlier it avoids being an organisation that has been purpose built for Nigeria and would find it hard to adapt when it needs to.

—

Jesse of OMG Digital walked into the Paystack office yesterday and I got to learn they are fully in Nigeria and Ghana. I’m sure French speaking Africa will come soon. I was glad.

Just the way I like it.

—

PPS: This post also forms the basis of what I see as the conundrum. I’ll try to articulate my thinking about that soon.

As with any blog post on race, I have to include a prelude.

This post is neither meant to be combative nor to apportion any blame. It is merely to add to a continuous conversation about diversity in technology. This post is MY OWN observation made on behalf of MYSELF. If any statement here can be interpreted in more than one way, assume the less combative way and / or ask me for clarification.

I actually wanted to write this over a year ago. However, I had been advised about the risk of branding myself as a diversity activist rather than being primarily known as a technology person. And most importantly, to avoid the risk of pissing off the people who control the tech media. But there is only so long you can postpone a question that pops up in your brain daily. As for the risk, we are in the business of risk taking.

Here is the issue

There are almost zero black faces speaking at the major tech startup conferences held in the US and Europe. And in the rare times they do pop up, e dey get k-leg (basically, it isn’t so straightforward).

Let’s check out the numbers of the most recent major/popular tech events (you can google for previous years).

Numbers are objective!

What you will notice is that in the rare times the black (wo)man is on stage, it somehow manages not to be those who are primarily in the tech field but say, in entertainment or sports. When it’s a tech person, s/he is mostly talking about diversity.

Here is the thing. This past year, I have personally emailed a few of these organizers to highlight the anomaly (no, I will not mention them). I have also recommended speakers. The responses (if they come) have not been positive.

Why are Black Speakers Important?

The Pattern Matching Loop.

When you make a decision based on historical data, you are bound to be biased by the data and produce a similar output. That becomes part of the data set and it continues…in a loop.

When tech black founders aren’t seen on stage (aka recognized as leaders in their field), fewer black kids would believe they have a future to excel in that field. The less black kids go into tech, the lower the chance the situation can change. Of course, that bias does not only influence the future black kids, it affects those looking for a co-founder, those looking for whom to fund etc.

I never blame those that pattern match; it is simply human nature.

Let me confess, if I have a few seconds to make a decision, I would not choose someone that looks like Jamie Oliver to make my jollof rice (don’t read the comments :)).

While it can be argued that food, music and some sports are cultural and therefore could have an inherent racial bias, tech isn’t.

5 years ago, I asked for the renowned black founders. While, there has been a lot of progress in that field since then, it has been against the odds.

The about pages and the speaker list of the tech conferences would have more influence on getting more diverse people into the technology field than any other thing I can think of. I know from first-hand experience.

Here are some Black Founders and Technologists that should not be overlooked.

First, I have to apologize for putting their names here. Because there is this taint that comes from being used as an example. When they get justifiable noticed, it becomes, “oh, they are there to fill in a quota”. But that could not be further from the truth. These folks deserve to be on the largest stages and are needed to correct the flawed data that say none of the best  happen not to be black.

1. Sim Shagaya (Harvard MBA, first Google Rep for Africa) is building a Nigerian e-commerce giant. Has arguably tamed the German Moving Train known as Rocket Internet’s Jumia with Konga. Raised $78 Million
2. Iyin Aboyeji (University of Waterloo). At 24, he has finally got his stride in his 3rd tech startup and has co-founded Andela, the mill to churn out the next 100k technologists in Africa. Recently raised $10 million.
3. Bilikiss Adebiyi (MIT). Using technology to help take away waste while making wealth and helping Lagos go green. Oh! She happens to be Black, Nigerian and Muslim.
4. Obi Nwosu is co-founder and CTO at a top UK based Bitcoin Exchange in the UK called CoinFloor. Doesn’t get more tech than that.

There are many more. However, let me not be accused of being biased towards Nigerians home and abroad. But Charity begins at home

Aston Motes was the first employee at Dropbox outside the founders. I do not recollect him being on any stage. He cannot be seen as a quota at any conference. And no, he is not a diversity expert.

Juliana Rotich of the BRCK team should be on every stage possible. BRCK is globally genius and should get much more love than it does.

Tony Gauda a TC Disrupt Finalist build Bitcasa, a Dropbox alternative. He is very qualified to be on any stage talking tech. And so is Anthony Skinner who was the CTO of Moz for many years, especially during their major technology transition. Louise, Kalam and Courtland are some of the black YC alums that are doing stuff as good as those speaking on any stage. So the question of affirmative action does not arise.

BTW, it took me 3 years to know that 2 Nigerian brothers founded a YC coy as far back as 2012. They just never happened to be on any major stage

Like I said above, I actually emailed a tech publication about their speaker line-up after one of their write-ups criticizing the tech companies who had released their diversity reports. I didn’t get a response.

I am certain that there isn’t any conspiracy to deny black people in tech stage presence but it is quite easy to take certain things for granted if you are not checking yourself. One example I used to show there is no deliberate plan by white people is one of the quietly best podcasts on tech around, DRT. Only two black people out of the 104 guests so far and the first was number 99. Well, the host is a black British designer

So how do we solve this?

To Affirm or Not to Affirm?

The biggest criticism of affirmative action is that it gives the impression that those who get in are not there based on their competence. Anyone who knows they are worthy on a level playing ground hates it. It is why I apologize to those people I named above. It would seem that they ordinarily would not qualify. That could not be further from the truth based on pedigree and results.

To me, I have started trying to see affirmative action as being more thorough and conscious. Instead of doing a quick Googling to see who to invite to the next conference, spend more time, go more further to find different types of people that QUALIFY to be on your stage. It is that simple!

I also think having a more diverse staff/speaker selectors at the disposal of those organizing tech events would help. People are quick to go for what and whom they know.

Though I fully respect and understand the need for minority focused events, I do not think it alone can help. We belong in the mainstream.

What finally triggered publishing this post (I wrote most of it a month ago) was the latest speaker announced for TC Disrupt London. When I finalized the draft for this post, they had 0 black people and I noted that there was still a chance to rectify it.

Then they chose Henry of Arsenal.

Please rectify.

PS: I hope because of this, I’m not punished covertly or overtly by the conference organizers I appear to criticize. This is to keep an important conversation going with good intention.

#OneLove

Click to Tweet this post.

PPS: Forgive typos. I just don’t see them. Thanks to Emmanuel, Banke and Sheriff for helping reduce them.

Nothing great is Built On Twitter, even though it should be the most powerful real-time communications platform on Earth. There are simply no developer integration features for building stuff on top of Twitter as a platform, and that is absurd and disappointing.

Source: Fixing Twitter

“Nothing great is Built On Twitter”

That quote sums it all up.

Most of Dustin’s suggested extensions are things other people should have built on Twitter. Of course, it also keys into Dalton’s App.Net plan where Twitter should have been the stream and people should have used a countless applications to make the stream more discernible and allow Twitter focus on ensuring the backbone stays in place.

Funny enough, that is how Twitter originated. Others built their clients (TweetDeck, Uber Social, Seesmic etc) and they focused on the core. They lost that direction and wanted to “own it all” like Facebook so fucke over all the guys who helped them on the way up.  But they took that direction rather too early.

It should be Build – Extend – Extinguish NOT Build – Extinguish ‘cos you might extinguish your self too if you do it too soon

Take Tweetstorming as an example which is a niche need. My team built (quite objectively) the best tweetstorming app in WriteRack. It pulls and pushes all it’s content from and to Twitter. In an ideal case, Twitter should support it and similar ones rather than making Twitter.com more convoluted with the aim of doing everything themselves.

If Twitter had supported third patrty developers, someone/people would have built a killer app for using twitter to follow and interact live events. That would have brought another set of people into the platform and that extends to other use cases too.
Hopefully, Twitter gets it right because I have come to really find Twitter useful.

First written as a comment on HN