Openfund - The Business Plan

8/14/2019 Openfund - The Business Plan

1/40

OPENFUND

The Business Plan

Draft version - June 2009

1


2/40

Abstract

The document at hand consists of the specifications of a seed venture capital fund,

focused specifically on innovative efforts immediately related to the Internet and High

Technologies.

The initiative capitalizes on the global promise and best practices of creating a disruptive

start-up enterprise, next to the lack of proper early-stage investment infrastructure in the

area of south eastern Europe. Moreover, it leverages on the locally available brainpower and

traction developed around innovation and entrepreneurship, as this is manifested through

the lasting momentum of Open Coffee meetings in Greece.

A brief description of the above potential is initially illustrated, together with the portrait

of the current situation in the local venture capital market, and some facts figuring out

the latent opportunity. Then, a detailed description of the formulated process is deployed,

providing all the specifications of the open call for applications, the selection and seeding

procedures, a process which is to be iterated for a number of rounds.

The document then moves on to shape out in detail the organizational structure of

the fund, including the liabilities and benefits of the Executive and Investor Boards, as

well as the Board of Advisors. An extended analysis of both the international and local

markets follows to document the funding void and investment opportunity to be addressed.

Further on, a financial analysis of the scheme is presented, covering the amount needed to

be raised, together with a breakdown of the operational cost of the vehicle. The expected

return on investment profiles are also put forward, next to the various exit strategies to be

targeted at.Finally, the funds goals, under the perspective of each one of the participating entities

are stated, while also appendixes with application and evaluation templates, and the short

bios of the members of the Executive Board are provided.

The specifications provided within the document have matured over a broad time win-

dow and a number of reengineering cycles to finally shape out what is believed to be a solid

and close to optimal approach to the given problem and investment opportunity. At the

same time, it is clearly stated that all contents are subject to change and the document on

hand does not convey any legal powers or responsibilities.

2


3/40

Contents

1 Executive Summary 5

2 Status & Promise 7

2.1 Global Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.2 Local Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3 Open Coffee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 Description 11

3.1 Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.2 Cycle iteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4 Structure 164.1 Executive Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.1.1 Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.1.2 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.2 Investor Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.2.1 Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.2.2 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.3 Board of Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.3.1 Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214.3.2 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.4 Corporate Processes and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5 Market analysis 23

5.1 International Market Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.2 Local market attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6 Financial analysis 27

6.1 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276.2 Return on Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

6.3 Exit strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

7 Goals 27

A Application & Evaluation Templates 29

A.1 Application template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3


4/40

A.2 Evaluation template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

B Composition of the Executive Board 37

B.1 Georgios Tziralis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

B.2 Georgios Kasselakis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37B.3 Dimitrios Athanasiadis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

B.4 Onic Palandjian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

B.5 Spiros Xanthos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

B.6 Apostolos Apostolakis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

B.7 Yannis Dosios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

B.8 Teresa Farmaki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4


5/40

1 Executive Summary

Openfund is targeting towards developing globally innovative start-ups that will eventually re-

turn benefits, and profits, to everyone participated in the Openfund endeavor. To achieve this,

Openfund aims at bringing together all the parts needed to succeed in starting-up, including thebest and brightest of teams of entrepreneurs and start-up ideas, a number of investors, a well-

connected network of advisors and a carefully selected Executive Board to fine tune the whole

set of processes.

In brief, this is made possible firstly by setting up a competition that allows the creation or

discovery of start-ups with vision and potential. Following that, these start-ups are provided with

proper advice, guidance and support to accelerate their maturation until a subsequent round or

exit.

The competition is based on a call for interest for start-ups that are to submit their businessproposals within two months. The submitted proposals are then to be judged by the Executive

Board of the Openfund, while the successful ones are summoned for a brief interview. The

proposals that pass this second round of judgment are called in for further interviewing in front

of both the Executive and Investors Boards of the scheme.

The chosen submissions are granted access to the support of the Openfund partners. This

includes advice, networking and affiliations with the partners allies. The newly formed busi-

nesses are continuously nurtured and mentored throughout their funding steps in all necessary

aspects. Support includes, among others, legal and tax issues, hands-on mentoring in manage-

ment, business and financial subjects, while technological and marketing consulting is also given

when required. These are the main benefits of participating in the Openfund.

However, to help jumpstart their business, start-ups also receive a seed round funding of 20 to

30.000 euro. This funding is provided over 4 months during which the participants work full-time

on their venture and are monitored, supported and advised by the Openfund. The goal is for

the teams to be provided with enough time to develop a fully functional product and a business

based on it, instead of a simple business plan. This stands as another reason why we focus on

web services, since the creation of prototypes in this industry is feasible in such a strict time

window. Furthermore, the support of a next round of funding will be under consideration, as well

as a potential exit from the investment, or the extended support of the accepted start-ups. The

suggested scheme is designed to operate in iteration cycles of 4 months.

In this document, all details of the Openfunds are provided. Among them, a brief descrip-

tion of the current status regarding high-tech entrepreneurship, next to the local problems and

potential, are outlined. A detailed description of the steps and phases of the whole process, the

structure of the people running it, a financial analysis demonstrating the Openfund sheets and

5


6/40

samples for the submission and judgment forms are also provided.

6


7/40

2 Status & Promise

2.1 Global Promise

New technologies in general and the web in particular offer today the opportunity to build dis-ruptive businesses, by initially spending very limited time and resources. If Google, Skype and

Facebook stand as the legends of our times, they are nothing but the tip of an iceberg, comprised

out of thousands of examples of less or more successful enterprises, built by taking advantage of

software and the web. The promise of a couple of aspiring entrepreneurs with very little resources,

developing a prototype application within a few months, and opening their service to the world

straight from their garage has almost evolved into a myth, but at the same time paves the way

for those willing to give what it takes to bring their vision into reality and change the world.

The age of entrepreneur in numbers translates in US and 2008 alone in Venture Capital firms

which invested 28.3 billion $ in 3803 enterprises, with seed and early stage investments counting

for 6.8 billion $ and 1453 of the total deals. At the same time, Information Technologies was the

biggest sector with a share of 13.3 billions in total, and software/internet-specific deals counted

for 5.0 billions1.

In Europe, Venture Capital fund allocation in 2007 was equal to 10.3 billion euro (not including

buyout and acquisition deals), out of which 7.2 billions were invested in high-tech. Interestingly,

out of these 7.2 billions, 3.3 were invested in early stage enterprises (seed and start-up phases),

while the number of total deals closed across industries was finally equal to 32752.

Investment activity in Europe is proportionally strong as the American counterpart and the

above numbers paint an optimistic picture regarding, if not anything else, the entrepreneurial

spirit and trend to start-up, regardless of the general economic situation. And, at least ac-

cording to investors decisions and entrepreneurs will, the promise and potential of high-tech

entrepreneurship is a tremendous one.

2.2 Local Status

Given the promise and premise described above, it is clear that Greece and south-eastern Europe

in general have yet to jump on the bandwagon of web entrepreneurship. The number of start-

ups is small, if any, the deal flow remains far from strong, with few deals taking place, and the

whole entrepreneurial ecosystem in general is striving, or simply does not exist, with the best and

brightest of brains typically draining away in search of better opportunities.

1source: PricewaterhouseCoopers, National Venture Capital Association MoneyTree Report2source: European Private Equity & Venture Capital Association, Private Equity Activity Survey 2008

7


8/40

To provide some numbers on the above and considering Greece as a typical example of the

status quo in the south-eastern european region, the corresponding metrics in 2007 indicate that

venture deals contributed 0.002% of GDP (last in EU), while the expected allocation of funds

raised for high-tech, early-stage investments was equal to 0 euro3. Moreover, there is virtually no

business angels network, no mature incubators, a few local companies that could buy-out smaller

companies and a very low activity of universities and public research institutions on making seed

capital investments in their researchers new ventures4. To make matters worse, local venture

capitalists lack the knowledge regarding companies of the new economy, featuring technological

innovation and significant growth5.

And assuming that the core components of a start-up ecosystem are its existing brainpower,

its active community, its investment funding and any proper advisory available, it is obvious

that the ecosystem in Greece is in a bad shape, regarding its latter two components at least.

However, there also exist some indicators that the needed ingredients for such an ecosystem arein place and are simply lacking a reliable trigger to ignite the whole start-up cycle. For example,

regarding brainpower, Greece joins the top EU countries when it comes to higher education

indices (without considering the significant number of greek students and researchers abroad)

and availability of scientists and engineers6. Moreover, some late developments with regard to

networking, cultivating interest and promoting high-tech entrepreneurship offer a tangible promise

of optimism. These developments which we consider sustainable and expandable are described

in more detail in the following paragraphs.

2.3 Open Coffee

Before describing in detail the suggested funding scheme, it is considered necessary to share the

Open Coffee Greece story, which actually is where this proposition comes from, while shaping

an overview of the present condition of Greek technology-oriented start-ups. A representative

portrait of the latter one can be drawn by extending the description of the community built

around the Open Coffee initiative.

Open Coffee as a movement began originally on February 27, 2007, when the British investor

Saul Klein announced on his personal blog that the following Thursday he would be at a Starbuckscafe in central London, available to anyone who was interested in meeting him. Of course this

3source: European Private Equity & Venture Capital Association, Private Equity Activity Survey 20084source: M. Bakatsaki-Manoudaki, K. Kosmidou, G. Papadopoulos, C. Zopounidis, The Venture Capital

Investment Process In Greece: Some Evaluation Aspects, The Greek Industry Towards the Knowledge Economy,

Conference of Technical Chamber of Greece, July 3-5, 2006, Athens5source: Overview of the Greek Venture Capital Market, Presentation of the existing situation in Greece,

Atlantis Consulting, 20076source: The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, London: Palgrave MacMillan

8


9/40

would be for mutual benefit. Lets establish from this point on a stable meeting point for open

and periodical meet-ups of entrepreneurs, investors or anyone who is interested, in a completely

informal environment, he suggested. A few months later, the original idea had spread like an

epidemic over more than 60 cities around the globe.

The need and vision of setting such an event seemed to be rather distant for Greece, when in

June 2007, a small group of people interested in technological entrepreneurship gathered for the

first time at a bookstores humble cafe, responding to a call by George Tziralis. The investors

were absent, however the inertia quickly gave in to enthusiasm, as the compatible start-up-related

interests sparked. People got to know each other, ideas were exchanged, next to experiences and

business cards, along with the promise for this pleasant experiment to repeat itself soon.

Since then many milestones have been reached, placing the Greek Open Coffee among the

top of similar events around the world, if not the most prominent one, with respect to attendance

count at least. Initially, the concept was enhanced with that of technological meetings in NewYork, where each first Tuesday of a month, starting 7pm, up to 6 speakers got to pitch their

ideas or businesses over 5-10 minutes, to the most hip entrepreneurs of the city. Next while

keeping the quality unchanged the idea was spread to Thessaloniki, the second largest city in

the country, under the supervision and organization of Georgios Kasselakis, where it was met with

success comparable to that of Athens. Following that, it has also spread in Ioannina and Patras

with similar results. Finally, the 1-year anniversary of the event was marked by the co-hosting

of an event with the largest technology-related blog on the planet, TechCrunch.com, leading to

ever quicker expansion of the existing network of contacts and evangelists.Today, two years after the first timid attempt, Open Coffee can report more than 40 meetings

in 6 cities around Greece, with almost a hundred and fifty of guest speakers and many hundreds

(a few thousands in total) participants (the last events in Athens gathered almost 300 people

per se), which quickly turn themselves into evangelists of the event and the start- up concept at

large. To give some further details, some of the most prominent speakers hosted so far include:

International targeted local technology start-ups such as Wadja, Darkfalls Aventurine,

Upstream Systems and Grebooca; next to a significant number of other, yet less known

enterprises

Successful entrepreneurs from Greece and abroad, including Jason Calacanis, Patrick De

Laive, Tim OReilly and others, in total more than 70 entrepreneurs, many of which had

just commenced their operation

Investors and funding schemes such as TANEO (New Economy Fund), Attica Ventures,

Velti SA, and Vasilis Makios, the driving force behind the Corallia Cluster.

9


10/40

Representatives from the area of politics such as Anna Diamantopoulou (former EU com-

missioner and minister of development) and Kiriakos Mitsotakis (ex- investment banker,

member of the parliament)

Moreover, many other events have been triggered or co-organized with companies such as Mi-crosoft, the international Startup Weekend and many others with special interest groups on

technology and business issues.

No matter of the amount of traction created or the criteria to call this a success, even maybe

a grassroots change, what remains without dispute is the main ingredient behind the vision and

people behind the Greek Open Coffee: The passion, ambition and drive to put the pieces of latent

potential together and transform the infeasible to a tangible reality.

10


11/40

3 Description

Openfund is created with the single fundamental scope of boosting the local technological start-

up scene, and reaping the fruits out of this development. This target is to be delivered by filling

the existing gap in seed level funding and support for entrepreneurial attempts related to newtechnologies and the internet. In the paragraphs to follow, the road map, time plan and processes,

from the creation of the scheme till the funding of the targeted start-ups, are presented.

The majority of these processes, from the creation to the operation of the scheme, are to

be handled by the Executive Board. These include, among others, collection and evaluation

of applications, early and final selection of the most capable among them, then support, advice,

funding and monitoring their way to launching their business, therefore providing exit opportunities

to the funding scheme itself. The Executive Board is comprised of a team of highly capable

consultants, covering all the range of expertise required for a start-ups operations. Resumes forthe members of the Executive Board are also provided in this document (see App.B).

3.1 Phases

Openfund is to be built around iterative start-up contests, out of which the most capable of

submissions are selected to receive the Openfund benefits. A detailed description of these oper-

ations is provided hereafter, starting from the announcement of the contest, to the selection of

proposals to the investment and maturity processes, a cycle which is repeated for a number of

iterations initially spanning 3 years.

Call of interest (expected duration: 2 months): Starting at month n, a call of interest

for submission of applications for Openfund opens. The call remains open for two full months,

thereby the deadline is at the end of the month n+2. Proposals submitted after the deadline

are reviewed in the next round. The next call of interest starts at the beginning of month n+4

and lasts till the end of month n+6, and so forth. Submitters are requested to form teams of

2 to 4 persons and fill the Application Template, which is also provided within this document

(one-member teams submissions may be reviewed, however they are not encouraged). Calls of

interest are to be communicated mostly by leveraging the width and traction of the Open Coffee

community, apart from all other available media outlets.

First judgment (expected duration: 1 month): Starting at the time of submission, each

proposal is assigned to two members of the Executive Board; their decision is finally validated by

a third member, who also decides if the recommendations do not coincide. A positive judgment

is announced to the rest of the Board and successful applicants (expected to be around 40 at this

stage) are requested to provide more details on their submission and appear at a short interview

11


12/40

(15 including Q&A). The whole judgment process including the announcement of results and

the interview day (which is common for all those successful in this stage) lasts 30 days, thus be

completed at the end of month n+3.

Second judgment (expected duration: 15 days): The interview day is followed by a briefing

of the applicants on their failure or success at this stage. Successful applicants are invited to

attend and give a 20 presentation in front of the judges at a full day workshop called Start-up

Day, which is expected to take place in the middle of month n+4 and which is also be heavily

promoted and open to the public. The Start-up Day typically also includes quick seminars by

prestigious speakers, sharing their experiences and viewpoints on building a successful start-up,

aiming to better prepare the successful teams that are the subject of investment. Seminars

take place in the morning, followed by the submissions pitches and Q&A. All 8 members of the

Executive Board serve as judges, plus 4 members of the Investor Board. All judges vote on each

submission, and the 5 proposals that get the most votes are selected. According to our financialanalysis support is planned for a maximum of 5 submissions per round. For a submission to be

selected, it should receive 7 positive votes at least. Moreover, 3 members of the Investor Board

could exercise a veto. Winners are announced in the same night or the morning that follows.

Seed preparation (expected duration: 15 days): Finally chosen submissions are given 15

days to accept and sign the terms of contract. The latter one defines a seed financing of 20.000

euro to 30.000 euro (typically, this is expected to be 20.000 euro for a two member team, plus

5.000 euro for each extra member, namely 25.000 euro for a three member team and 30.000

euro for a four member team; however the criteria may vary). Accepting the contract resultsin an Openfund share of 20% in the company that is formed out of the submission. Another

fundamental term of the contract prescribes that the team works exclusively on their project

for the duration of 4 months, which is hereby called the Seeding Timeframe and is described in

detail below. The investment is not delivered at once, but gradually as the expenses come in and

the milestones defined by the Executive Board are met. Typically, each funded proposal receives

5.000 euro per month, while the extra amount granted for larger teams is to be given at the

beginning of the third month of the Timeframe. The time window from the Start-up Day till

the start of the Seeding Timeframe is defined as 15 days and is completed at the end of month

n+4.

Seeding Timeframe (expected duration: 4 months): As mentioned, this lasts 4 months

during which the receivers of the investment work exclusively on all their submission and its

business. This time window is provided to turn an idea to a working prototype and a business that

is launched, even if not at full operational capacity. The team will operate under a separate legal

entity (for each submission) which will have to be initiated if it does not exist. In order to avoid

wasting the entrepreneurs resources on the legal details and administration, two measures have

12


13/40

been taken. For one thing the legal process is identical and streamlined so that all submissions

go through the same steps and ideally require no customisation or alteration. For another, there

is legal help available in the form of the Board of Advisors members for the cases where it

is absolutely necessary. Both the Executive Board and the Board of Advisors provide extensive

support to the teams, including advisory in technical and business aspects, apart from giving access

into an extended network of contacts. Three members of the Executive Board are assigned with

the close monitoring of each start-up, while each start-up presents its progress to the full Executive

Board at the end of each month, to secure the investment flow for the next month. Upon initiation

of the Seeding Timeframe milestones are set jointly by the Executive Board members allocated to

the team and the team itself. It is these milestones that need to be achieved for the investment

installments to be deposited to the team. Moreover, each team submits a short progress report

on a weekly basis and discusses its problems or achievements with its assigned executives in an

almost daily basis. The Seeding Timeframe of the first cycle will be completed in month n+8.Exit (expected duration: undefined): Without diminishing the processes described here, the

main purpose of a fund remains nevertheless to be profitable. The alumni start-ups of the

Openfund are provided with full support to grow, so as to end up in a further round of funding

or acquisition, providing exit opportunities for the funds investment. Within this context, all

members of the Investor Board are granted priority in considering a round A investment for

the start-ups, while all Boards contribute towards securing one of the previous options for each

one of the alumni start-ups. The aforementioned legal entities created out of the teams which

successfully submitted an idea to the Openfund will have already in place all the requirements

necessary to make them an enticing target for further funding whether that originates locally or

abroad.

3.2 Cycle iteration

The aforementioned process is to be repeated in cycles that are designed in order to maximize the

operational efficiency of the Board and provide a steady flow of submissions, start-ups, resources

absorption and exit opportunities. As such, the next cycle starts with a new call of interest right

after when the winners of the previous round are selected (month n+5), while the announcementof the new winners coincides with the end of the Seeding Timeframe for the start-ups of the

previous rounds, and so forth. These become clearer into the flowchart of Fig.1. Finally, these

iterations are designed to continue for as long as a sufficient capital is provided, ideally for a

period of 3 years and 7 iterations. Naturally, each iteration builds upon and is improved by the

experiences and skills that gathered from the previous ones.

The overall process can also be examined in detail in Gantt format in Fig.2.

13


14/40

Figure 1: Openfund operations flowchart

14


15/40

Figure 2: Gantt diagram for Openfund

15


16/40

4 Structure

Openfund is essentially a three-component system which needs to be optimized so that all parties

involved (the start-ups, the Executive Board, the Board of Advisors and the Investor Board) get

the best deal possible. To ensure this a number of procedures are in place as already mentioned.

4.1 Executive Board

The Executive Board is comprised of 8 executive members and is in charge of running the

Openfund. Two of the executive members hold the position of executive director, while the

Boards liabilities include, among others, fund raising, running the call of interest, judgment and

selection processes, next to facilitating anything related to the seeding of selected start-ups and

other activities. The above liabilities, as well as the benefits received by the Executive Board,

are described in detail in the following paragraphs, while the short bios of all members of the

Executive Board are included in App. B.

4.1.1 Liabilities

With the Executive Board being the driving force behind the Openfund, its liabilities extend to

practically everything related to the funds operations. Starting from specifying in detail the

framework of operation, to fund raising, to running the open call for submissions and the seeding

of the selected start-ups, the Executive Board needs to orchestrate the whole endeavor andoptimize the use of existing resources, together with the cooperation of entrepreneurs with the

Investor Board and Board of Advisors.

Regarding the more demanding of iterative processes, namely the review of applications and

the monitoring of selected start-ups, provision is drafted so as to secure the smooth and efficient

distribution of the needed tasks. Specifically, as figured out in Sec. 3.1, each proposal submitted

is assigned to two members of the Executive Board, of complementary backgrounds. Moreover,

the Executive Board members are those in close collaboration with their allocated start-ups.

Although this does not mean that Executive Board members are embedded in the start-up team

in order to help with management or other decisions, it involves regular meetings and frequent

communication to ensure that issues and challenges that arise in the start-ups progress are dealt

with as efficiently as possible either by the assigned Executive Board members providing advice

or by them referring the start-up to the relevant member of the Board of Advisors. Progress

reports are produced by the entrepreneurs on a weekly basis for the assigned Executive Board

members. A monthly presentation of the results achieved is to be given for the entire Executive

Board to ensure that good progress has been made and to authorize the next installment of the

16


17/40

start-up investment. Overall, the Executive Board is responsible for carrying out and managing

successfully all the steps outlined in Sec.3.1.

Another significant set of liabilities regards the communication and the liaison with investors.

For one thing, the Executive Board is responsible for the information flow towards the investors

regarding their progress of their investment. For another, among the pool of investors with a

given interest in participating in the fund, it is the Executive Board that selects those who are to

invest in the forthcoming iteration. This process takes place at the beginning of each round and

the amount raised is sufficient for both the seed capital granted to the start-ups to be selected,

plus the operational expenses of the Openfund (for funding details see Sec.5). Moreover, the

Executive Board is responsible for raising further funds and ensuring a stable flow of commitment

and investment partners.

Lastly, the Executive Board is responsible for handling all matters related to its management,

administration, next to legal and tax matters (excluding issues that are outsourced to affiliated

partners - e.g. legal firms). It also means handling all publicity efforts involving traditional media

(press, magazines, TV, radio etc) as well as new media. This translates in maintaining a web

presence both based on an official homepage as well as by participating in the online community

(answering email, following blogs, twitter etc). Furthermore, the Executive Board is responsible

for organising, promoting and seeing through the special events occurring at the end of each

investment cycle.

4.1.2 Benefits

The single most important of benefits that each one of the members of the Executive Board

receives is a stake of 1% from each start-up created via the Openfund. Such a stake is considered

to provide, apart from a capable compensation, a sustainable and secure commitment to the

operation of both the Openfund, and the start-ups to be created. With each one of the Executive

Board members being a shareholder and partner in the start-ups, their best of efforts and support

to the new enterprises and the Openfund are guaranteed, as this lies in their best interests.

Other benefits include limited monthly wages. These are to be given into the members of the

executive board who are going to spend a significant (or full-time) amount of time and resources

into the Openfund, typically those who are holding a position of an executive director.

Last, but not least, the members of the Executive Board are co-shaping an ecosystem of

entrepreneurs, investors, advisors and business ventures and they are expected to gain access into

this extensive network of connections and projects, next to a considerable amount of exposure

and publicity. These stand as another significant benefit of joining the Executive Board.

17


18/40

4.2 Investor Board

The Funds structure under the investors need for due diligence is designed with a single goal

in mind: To minimize the extent of necessary investor interference, by providing a clear and

transparent framework of predefined processes for all of the Openfunds operations. Given alsothe limited size of the fund raised and especially its distributed character, this objective leads to

the following minimal set of liabilities for the Investors Board.

4.2.1 Liabilities

Minimum participation of each investor is defined equal to 30,000 euro (practically, one cannot

invest an amount less than the needed funding for one start-up), while each investor receives

a share on each start-up, fully equivalent to the amount he has invested in. For example, if 5

investors were to contribute 35,000 euro each for a specific round, then each one would essentiallyown 2.4% of each start-ups shares (12% total share of the Investment Board).

The seed capitals are then pooled and invested according to the Openfund guidelines. Investors

are not given an ownership percentage over the Openfund but instead directly over the companies.

This percentage is distributed according to the amount of money that they have pledged over

each round. So, if at a given point in time the Openfund has money from a number of investors,

they all invest and receive a proportional stake in the companies that receive funding in the

following round. As the money from certain investors expire, so do their rights of a stake in future

investments - unless they reinvest new funds of course. This scheme is thus set up as a way toprotect the Openfunds long term viability and the ability of smaller investors to participate. Since

start-up funding is not the primary problem that the Openfund addresses, smaller investments

from individual entrepreneurs and others that can also contribute with mentoring and professional

insight are considered very important.

It is also important to note though that investments in Openfund are organised in batches,

rather than rounds. Each investor, by putting the minimum amount of 30,000 euro receives

shares in 5 companies, no matter the number of the companies selected in the next round. In

other words, a batch of investments represents 5 investment agreements. That is, if in the x

round only 3 companies are selected, the investor of this round will also receive shares from other

2 companies in the round x+1. This approach is selected so as to secure the full absorption of

the minimum investment, moreover to provide the advertised spread of investors risk to 5 rather

than less enterprises. Fig.3 provides a schematic representation of the above.

Openfunds operational expenses typically occur out of the investors participation, too. In

general, these are expected to be equal to the 6th start-up, so roughly one sixth of each investors

contribution will be spent for operational reasons. More details and a cost breakdown are provided

18


19/40

Figure 3: Openfund investment process flowchart

19


20/40

in Section 6.1.

Other than monetary, the liabilities of the Investor Board, which consists of the investors

taking part in the ongoing iteration, are limited to participating in the final judgment of funding

proposals with 4 members of the Investor Board, while also joining with one representative in

the regular monthly meeting of the Executive Board. The investors, apart from this opportunity

to examine the progress of the Openfund start-ups, also receive a short monthly report of the

start-ups track record. Other than that, the investors involvement is not required as most of the

work necessary to follow the start-ups development is undertaken by the Executive Board. All

logistics and investment decisions are taken by the Executive Board with the investors obviously

maintaining the right to veto some critical actions (see Sec.3.1).

Moreover, the Investors Board may be perceived as a subset of the Board of Advisors, with

any individual investor being encouraged to serve as an advisor too, contributing their valuable

expertise and experience, next to their network of contacts to the Openfund start-ups.

4.2.2 Benefits

The investors have the de facto advantage of owning a stake at a few of the best available startups

in the tech and IT industry in Greece and south-eastern Europe, which have been handpicked by

experts that have been embedded in the community and the market for many years. As such the

probability of having made a successful investment is maximised as is the expected ROI (to be

outlined in Sec. 6).

Other advantages for the Investor Board members include becoming acquainted and having

an improved access to that particular sector of the local market which in its short lifetime has

been known to be among the best in Europe (see Sec. 5). This is enabled by attracting the

attention of entrepreneurs who will be willing to demonstrate their ideas and business plans to

the publicly showcased investors - even outside and following the Openfund scope.

Furthermore, the strength of an investment in EU stands a fair chance of having its potential

enhanced by matching the amount invested by state or European funds. There are various

programs in operation currently which can relatively easily be applied to the Openfund vehicle in

its current legal format. It is stressed however that such processes are to run in the background;

in any case public money will not be vital for the operation of the Openfund and it will only be

pursued as a secondary target to support the private investments.

Finally, investing in the Openfund apart from its immediate gains related to the particular

startups results in actually creating a new market in the area. And although particular investments

no matter how carefully selected may not after all fulfill their potential for external reasons,

ensuring a continuous deal-flow is an even more important benefit for all parties involved but

20


21/40

especially for those with the role of an investor.

4.3 Board of Advisors

The Board of Advisors consists of a large number of experts covering a broad range of subjects:legal, financial, technological, marketing, business and other fields are covered by multiple experts

based both in Greece and abroad. As such, it is ensured that start-ups accepted in the Openfund

have the best available resources covering both their local issues that are a consequence of each

start-ups established base (mainly legal, governmental and tax matters that are a consequence of

each start-ups established base), as well as the rest of their needs relating to their global scope.

4.3.1 Liabilities

The main role of the Board of Advisors is to provide consulting when required by the start-

ups accepted in the Openfund. Requests for advice are monitored by the Executive Board to

ensure that the Board of Advisors help is utilised in the instances that it is really necessary. The

Executive Board also reserves the right to communicate with the Board of Advisors for counselling

and advice for its own management matters.

It is the aim of the Executive Board to achieve maximum efficiency and to make the most of

the resources available by both the start-ups and the Board of Advisors. Therefore, consulting

takes place primarily by employing all available means of remote communication (email, telephone,

webconferencing etc) and only in the cases it is feasible and necessary by physical presence. Inthe rare occasion that a Board of Advisors members presence is absolutely necessary, every

effort is made by the Executive Board for their expenses to be covered. Practically, however, the

only requirement on the part of the Board of Advisors members is to be available for consulting

on a reasonable time-scale (i.e. within 2-3 days for remote communication). The Board of

Advisors members are also welcome and encouraged to participate in the start-up presentation

and interview events that are regularly organised by Openfund - although their presence is not

required. Lastly, it is also encouraged but left to the discretion of the Board of Advisors members

to aid the Openfund start-ups as well as the Executive Board by utilising their own network ofconnections in the context of the Openfund.

4.3.2 Benefits

The Board of Advisors is kept up-to-date regarding all major developments solely by a regular

newsletter and by the Openfund main means of communication and presence its website. This

ensures a low overhead both for the Board of Advisors consuming updates and the Executive

21


22/40

Board producing them. The benefits of a professional becoming an Advisor are obvious in that

sense: with minimum involvement and effort an Advisor has easy access to first-class possible col-

laborators and experts. These are the startups entrepreneurs themselves who having collaborated

successfully with an Advisor are likely to request his services again. The Board of Advisors itself

can also be a pool of possible collaborators for an Advisor - its members will be displayed publicly

in the relevant section of the Openfund website along with a short bio and contact details. The

Advisors presence there as well as the publicity associated with the efforts of the startups they

choose to involve themselves with is another benefit for Board of Advisors members. Finally,

Advisors get to participate in the technology and IT startup community and involve themselves

in its stimulation an activity which can only benefit them in the long term.

4.4 Corporate Processes and Policies

available upon request

22


23/40

5 Market analysis

In this section the Openfunds market environment is outlined categorised by locality. Firstly, the

situation is described in the international market and secondly particular details are given for the

Greek market.

5.1 International Market Analysis

In order to support that Openfund is a self-sustainable enterprise that is bound to generate income

for its stakeholders and stimulate entrepreneurship at the seed level, three other similar ventures

and their results are examined.

Seedcamp, a similar European venture based in London, has ran for two years (2007 and 2008)

and has micro-funded 6 and 7 start-ups respectively. Out of them, two have secured an unknownseries A funding (mybuilder.com, kublax.com), another has secured multiple seed rounds of 400K

in total (tablefinder.com) while another one, Zemanta, has secured 2.1M in seed funding. This

translates in approximately a 30% success rate (or 1 in 3) and conservative valuations of more

than 1M.

Techstars, a US vehicle enabling seed funding based in Boulder, Colorado, has invested in 19

start-ups in its short lifespan. Out of them 8 (or 40%) made an exit: socialthing.com was acquired

by AOL for a reported 6.8M, intensedebate.com was acquired by the Wordpress platform for an

undisclosed amount, while madkast.com, ignighter.com, foodzie.com, filtrbox.com, eventvue.com

and brightkite.com raised rounds of 300K, 1.2M, 1M, 0.5M, 0.25M and 1M respectively.

The most famous venture in this category, YCombinator, which was initiated in Boston and

has now moved to the Bay area, has funded more than 80 start-ups in the past 4 years. Its most

successful exits include Xobni (raised 4.2M), justin.tv (2M), Loopt (12M), reddit.com (acquired

by Conde Nast) and Scribd (3.7M) as well as the most recent tipjoy.com (1M) and rescuetime.com

(0.9M).

Furthermore, examples of investments in the broader southeast European region include

Croatian-based start-up, shoutem.com which raised 350K in late 2008, the previously mentioned

Zemanta of Slovenian origin and the Turkish befunky.com which has secured 0.8M.

Thus, by looking at ventures similar to Openfund but also the market as a whole, it becomes

apparent that there is a potential for seed funding start-ups whether the US or European sector

is examined. Also, using those examples as case-studies it is possible to estimate indicators like

rates of success (exits) and valuation levels that could also apply to Openfund-related forecasts.

In fact, if the rates of success and investments of the previous case-studies are taken at face-value

they may be considered to overestimate the Openfund potential. This is because they correspond

23


24/40


25/40

Figure 4: Greek market comparison with other EU countries in Computer Science (EIS 2005)

dedicated body exists to track that particular section of the market, but also because deals

are rather sparse. However, based on informal discussions and information exchange, it has

been determined that the few valuations of the most mature startups that have happened were

positioned in the 500K to 1M scale.

Through organizing Open Coffee (see Sec.2.3) meetings in Greece and coming in direct contact

with its participants, it has become clear that one of the main obstacles towards the creation

of start-ups is the lack of initial (seed) funding. Even though the amounts of money required

are very small, starting a company is made very difficult especially to the younger and more

creative crowd due to the financial pressure they are under.

Observations and numbers as those mentioned earlier consist a reliable indicator of exist-

ing wide interest and latent potential. The precious and proven sustainable community of en-

trepreneurs that are attending the Open Coffee events, guarantees the existence of a fertile ground

for the Openfunds deployment.

25


26/40

Figure 5: Greek industries comparison with other EU countries (EIS 2005)26


27/40

6 Financial analysis

6.1 Costs


6.2 Return on Investment


6.3 Exit strategies


7 Goals

It should be by now clear that Openfund addresses an ambitious, yet realistic opportunity and

tangible market need. And, by providing the missing links to bring the existing pieces together,

Openfund aims at creating significant value for everyone participating in it. In this context, the

goal is simple and straightforward: To form a number of stellar teams, help them turn their

innovative ideas into globally-aimed, disruptive start-ups, and make them succeed.

For the Openfund to prove itself operational and successful, all members of the equationshould reap substantial benefits, both in the mid- and long-term, with regards to what they

bring to the table. Entrepreneurs need to receive value which is corresponding to what they

forfeit - the amount of shares they assign to the Openfund. Investors expect to make a profit

-among other benefits- worthwhile of the risk they are taking by their participation, while the

same applies, in a different scale of pledge, for advisors, too. Finally, executives need to receive

a strong compensation, proportionate to the commitment and the value of their resources they

offer to the Openfund.

The above seem to compose a problem difficult to tackle and the failure to satisfy the needs

of any of the above participants is clearly more than crucial for the Openfunds viability. However,

the creation of up to 15 exceptional enterprises per year is expected to offer multiple opportunities,

capable of ensuring that all cogs will slide into place and resulting into a clockwork operation.

It is typical to expect a significant amount of systemic and operational risk embedded in each

one of Openfunds critical processes, from fund raising to start-up selection and success. This

is where the document at hand comes into the picture. It is strongly believed that the detailed

specifications, extensively reengineered to shape the optimum solution given the known problem

27


28/40

and resources, and covering every aspect of the Openfunds operations, are capable of massaging

the embedded risk and turning the needed leap of faith for all Openfunds participants into a safe

bet.

However, all of the above, lacking any further proof or track record under the local circum-

stances, stand as an experiment on paper which needs to be confirmed by running it in practice.

It is therefore reasonable to expect that a number of the above assumptions and specifications

will prove not to be operational or fully compatible with the actual needs of the local market. At

this point, it is the strong commitment, experience and expertise of all members of the Executive

Board that stands as the most important of Openfunds assets. The Executive Board will be able

to fine-tune the given details, as soon as actual feedback from the Openfunds operation comes

in, so as to further optimise all of the operational specifications.

It is the amount of work mirrored within this document plus the strong commitment that

the Executive Board puts in place that finally serve to secure the fulfillment of the Openfundsfundamental goals. If founding a company stands as the most efficient way to create wealth, for

both founders and investors, or the society at large, it is firmly believed that the Openfund stands

as the optimum way and shortest path from the current defunct situation into an enterprising

ecosystem that provides tangible benefits to all of its participants, yet alone the ones who have

caused its blossoming.

28


29/40

A Application & Evaluation Templates

A.1 Application template

This is provided online so that the data are immediately in processable format hence the lack

of space to reply to the questions.

Idea description Describe your idea in 200 words or less

Team

Name

SurnameURL eg blog, company site, project

portfolio

Snail mail address

Living abroad YesNo

Technical skills 12345 Rate your technical skills (eg

programming, webpage design,

project management) of every

team member in the 1-5 scale.

Business skills 12345

Finance skills 12345

Level of studies Secondary Education (High School, Bac-

calaureate, ...) Bachelor Master

Doctorate Post Doc

Field of study Usually a member is an expert

in a field or has a skill that

makes him or her indispensable

for the team. This can be atechnical (eg translator) or a

human skill (eg communicator,

negotiator,etc)

Comments Whatever you think is impor-

tant but doesnt fit in anywhere

else.

29


30/40

Product

Innovation Describe, if applicable, the dif-

ference between your idea and

other solutions to the same

problemRevenue model How do you plan to make

money?

Product useful-

ness

Why is your product necessary

to the customer?

Idea maturity Mockup (Video, Directorware,

Schematic) Implemented Parts

Prototype First implementation

Mature

Proposals that prove that their

creators can actually do what

they are suggesting are appre-

ciated.Prototype address An address of the product

dont forget access details if re-

quired.

Next phases of de-

velopment

What are the steps you have

decided to take and will happen

in the foreseeable future?

Competitors I

30


31/40

Do you have

known competi-

tion in Europe?

Yes No Name your competition

Do you haveknown competi-

tion internation-

ally?

Yes No

What are your dif-

ferentiating points

from them?

Unfair advantage Do you believe there is an el-

ement in your team, in yourintellectual property or in an-

other field that gives you an

advantage over your competi-

tion?

Competitors II

Established intel-

lectual property

Have you established any

patents for your intellectual

property?

Where Europe USA

Is there intel-

lectual property

that requiresprotection?

Have you come up with a pro-

cess that is worthy of protec-

tion in a software or hardwarepatent?

Do you need

patent license?

Yes No Unclear Do you need patent licenses for

the processes you employ?

Corporate

31


32/40

What type of

company do you

have

No company yet EE OE EPE

AE Other

Where is yourcompany based?

Have you received

funding in the

past?

No Loan Venture Capital

What percent of

your company

belongs to the

funding partymentioned above?

1-100 Please give the percentage per

funding body

Funding

32


33/40

Amount # How much money do you need

for the fully functional start of

your business (e.g. first version

of your product)Rounds SeedA Seed, if you havent received

funding in the past. A, if you

have.

Needs Is there something particularly

expensive that is necessary or

helpful and can be bought with

the investment?

Maintenance cost # How much do you think run-ning your business per month

costs (in euro)? Even if

the company has not been

founded, calculate the cost

based on the time you spend

on the project and your current

salary.

Utilization What else do you plan to

do with the investment apart

from the previously mentioned

needs?

Technology

33


34/40

What is the basic

platform on which

you are developing

(if relevant)?

There is no bias on our part.

Database What database or other stor-

age methods are you using?

Experience with

the tools

How many months of experi-

ence with your tools does your

team have collectively?

Previous use Have you done something with

those tools in the past? It helps

if there is an address and anindication this is indeed your

work.

Principal technical

lesson

Usually there is a principal

technical person which makes

all the relevant final decisions

and implements the solutions

although there can be more

than one.

Goals

What are your

measurable tar-

gets for the next

quarter?

Achieving which goals would

mean your efforts have been

considered a success?

What are your

measurable tar-gets for the next

year?

Achieving which goals would

mean your efforts have beenconsidered a success

The evaluation is simply an example and some details may be inaccurate. The rankings

provided vary between 1 and 5 (5 being the best). The first part of the form is filled in by the

applicant. The section starting with the evaluation is filled in by the members of the Executive

Board.

34


35/40

A.2 Evaluation template

Project summary

Description

What is its usefulness and/or its innovation

Team members Project contact: One of the 2-4

Name Name Member 2 Member 3 Member 4

Email Email

URL URL

Background Technical/

Business /

Science

Level Level

Special skills Special skills

Product maturity

Development Phase Mockup (Video, Directorware, Schematic) /

Implemented Parts / Prototype /

First implementation/ Mature

Location URL

Comments

Funding details

Amount

Round Seed/AUse

Exit Strategy

Points of importance

positive points

negative points

35


36/40

Recommendation

General impression

Usefulness evaluation

Problems

Realistic, in terms of the market

Realistic in terms of teams capabilities

In need of funding

In need of consulting and support

Proposition

VC suitability 1-5

Competitive advantage 1-5

Quality of work 1-5

Intellectual property 1-5

Team completeness 1-5

Usefulness 1-5

Overall evaluation 1-5

36


37/40

B Composition of the Executive Board

The human part of the Openfund scheme can be split in three layers. The first is the Executive

Board and has an executive role being responsible for taking initiatives and making decisions. Its

also the team that has the final say over judgment and investment of various companies. Thesecond body, the Board of Advisors is there to provide their advice and adds with their experience

and technical expertise in the Openfund in their respective very specific entrepreneurial niches.

The third, the Funding Board is comprised of the investors, funding bodies and initiatives that

are participating in the legal entity behind the Openfund with a percentage proportional to their

monetary contribution.

B.1 Georgios Tziralis

Georgios Tziralis, 27, has received a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with a specialty in Op-

erations Research from the National Technical University of Athens. His PhD research covers

the area of Forecasting, ranging from Econometrics and Time Series Analysis to Data Mining

and Artificial Intelligence. His late research endeavors focus on the topic of prediction markets,

with a number of academic contributions that already enjoy international recognition. In paral-

lel, he teaches -in a purely innovative way- Algorithms for Pattern Recognition at the NTUAs

post-graduate program of Applied Mathematical Sciences. As an entrepreneur, G. Tziralis serves

since 2007 as co-founder and CEO of AskMarkets UnLtd (www.askmarkets.com), a start-up

attempting to bring the promise and potential of prediction markets to the masses. Other activ-ities include co-founding MineKnowledge Ltd (http://mineknowledge.com), an agency providing

simplified data mining services on demand and the comparison search engine WebSource.it

(http://websource.it). Finally, G. Tziralis is widely identified as the initiator of Greek Open

Coffee.

B.2 Georgios Kasselakis

Georgios Kasselakis, 24, is an Informatics BSc from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, fo-

cused on Internet-related Technology and the syndication of data over it, as well as Algorithm

Theory and Procedural Analysis. Over time he has worked as a hardware repairman, software

engineer, software architect and recently project manager for informational systems built by com-

mission. Past works worthy of mention include the first asynchronous e-learning platform to

achieve a SCORM 1.2 certification in the world for System Consulting SA and the architectural

supervision of an expert system that automatically designs hydraulic elevators and integrates

them in the existing CRM of Kleemann SA. He has participated and excelled in competitions for

37


38/40

entrepreneurial ideas and software design such as the Innovation 2006 (top 1.4% of all proposals)

and ImagineCup 2005 (2nd place in Greece). He is now working on his personal project, Sojourner

which aims to leave a permanent mark at an international level on the way we manage and

distribute RSS Feeds. The first fruit of this effort is Twittastic (www.twittastic.net). In his free

time he also organizes the Open Coffee Thessaloniki event.

B.3 Dimitrios Athanasiadis

Dimitrios Athanasiadis, 31, is a graduate from the Physics Department of the University of

Athens (2001) with a PhD in Radioastronomy from the University of Manchester (2004). During

his studies in the UK he has worked on reviews, data analysis using programming techniques,

scientific observation, participating in various working groups, writing and presenting scientific

publications, teaching to undergraduates and so on. He was also charged with responsibilitiesover the security and representation of undergraduate students, helping with the operation and

management of the student campus. In Greece he contributed with various articles in youth press,

an activity which he pursued for 2.5 years. From 2005 to 2007 he was employed in the National

Observatory of Athens as a researcher, a position which included data analysis, compiling results

and presenting them to the scientific team, participating in competitions and so on. In 2006 he

participated with a 5-strong team in the Innovation 2006 competition held by Otenet, where he

took 4th place among 2700 submissions. His role included providing the original concept, writing

a large part of the business plan and doing the final presentation before the judges. He hasalso worked in various blogs since 2004 (miaparea.blogpot.com, terrainnova.org, opencoffee.gr)

and is an avid observer of all start-up and technology-related news he can get his eyes on. He

also recently participated in various projects (websource.it, howsocial.ru, greekstart-ups.com etc),

while co-organising the Open Coffee Athens events.

B.4 Onic Palandjian

Onic Palandjian, 38, has received a BSc in Management from Bentley and a CSS in Business

Administration from Harvard. His 17-year business experience is diverse ten years as a venture

capitalist, four as an entrepreneur and three in financial services. Onic is the investment Director

of Capital Connect since the funds inception in 2003. At present Onic focuses primarily on

managing green investments and is the founding investor of two recycling companies in Greece.

Prior to joining Capital Connect, Onic founded two technology companies, ihavemoved Ltd in

London and ich-zieh-um GmbH in Hamburg. He sourced $10 million from investors including

Rothschilds, RWE, Hyundai and MITs Nicholas Negroponte and subsequently, in 2003, Royal

38


39/40

Mail Plc and Deutsche Post AG acquired them. His early venture capital experience comes from

Dorian Eagle Financial Partners (Hadjipateras Group), where he financed energy, transportation

and technology investments. Onic started his career in 1992 as an executive at J.Hancock - now

Manulife Financial - the 3rd largest Financial Services group in the world.

B.5 Spiros Xanthos

Spiros Xanthos, 27, is the co-founder and VP of Engineering at Pattern Insight, a software

company based in Mountain View, CA. Before that, Spiros conducted research in Systems Mining

and Reliability as a member of the Opera research group at the University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign that created the technology behind Pattern Insight. He has published several research

papers in the areas of Systems and Software Engineering. Spiros holds an MSc in computer

science from the University of Illinois and is currently on leave from the PhD program. He got

his BSc in Computer Science from the University of Macedonia in Thessaloniki Greece, where

he conducted research in Software Engineering. He has previously worked at Google. Spiros

interests include information mining from systems data, search engines, and large scale software

systems development.

B.6 Apostolos Apostolakis

Apostolos Apostolakis, 35, has received his diploma in Civil Engineering from National Technical

University of Athens in 1996. In 1998 he cofounded with 2 friends e-shop.gr where he was involved

until 2000, when he went to New York to get his MBA from Columbia University. In 2002 after

graduation, he joined Boston Consulting Group where he worked as a consultant until 2004.

During his time with BCG he was involved with projects in consumer and corporate banking as

well as heavy industrial operations. At some of his main projects he analyzed and improved credit

processes for banks as well as helped formulate and implement revenue and cost allocation models

between business units. In 2004 he rejoined e-shop.gr as a general manager where he serves until

today. In 2008 e-shop.gr is the largest technology e-tailer in Greece and Cyprus, having 64 outlets

in both countries, employing more than 500 people and expecting revenue for 2009 of 150 million

euro. In the first years at e-shop.gr he was involved with all aspects of a growing company and

since 2008 with the company having matured he is mainly involved with the marketing and the

financial management of the company.

39


40/40

B.7 Yannis Dosios

Yannis Dosios, 33, is the VP of Marketing at Smilebox, a leading photo and video sharing

and preservation service headquartered in Seattle, Washington. His experience is in online paid

search and SEO marketing, building profitable consumer business models, business development,

partner management, brand building, PR and seeding programs, web analytics and research.

Before Smilebox, he was a Senior Product Manager at Microsoft, where he planned and managed

a version of the Windows operating system targeted at users in emerging markets and launched

it in countries in Asia and Latin America. Prior to that, he was a strategy consultant for the

Monitor Group in Los Anageles, providing business strategy advice to senior executives in the

pharmaceutical, technology and entertainment industries. Yannis holds a Masters in Business

Administration from Stanford University and a BA in Mathematics from Harvard University.

B.8 Teresa Farmaki

Ms Teresa Farmaki, 30, has received a BSc in Economics from the National and Capidistrian

University of Athens and an MBA from Columbia Business School in New York with particular

focus in Entrepreneurship and Finance. She also studied one MBA semester at London Business

School, where she supported Imperial College postgraduate students to complete commercializa-

tion studies on their innovation ideas. Teresa is currently Head of Private Equity at Piraeus Bank

in Athens, where she evaluates a wide spectrum of venture capital and private equity investments

in terms of size and maturity. In the beginning of 2009 she launched a 30M venture capitalfund between Piraeus Bank and TANEO, which is now run by a team of three. Previously, she

worked as an investment banking Associate at UBS Investment Bank in Mergers & Acquisitions

in London and in Power and Renewable Energy in New York. She started her professional career

in 2000 and has worked in several positions in asset management and consulting.

Documents

Openfund - The Business Plan