Today is the signing of a third bilateral agreement with Salucia under the Debt Service Suspension Initiative, this is the SSI. I'd like to give congratulations on the conclusions of this agreement, which allows Salucia to benefit from the implementation of the amendment to the Paris Club MOU of 22 December 2021 by France. Just to tell briefly that this initiative was decided in October 2020 and has been extended once in June 2021 and today we are signing the final six-month extension for the period from 1st July to 31st December 2021. The governments and Salucia wishes to extend its appreciation for the support received to date from the government of the French Republic under the Debt Service Suspension Initiative, DSSI. We are all aware that the DSSI was an initiative agreed in April 2020 by the IMF World Bank and the G20 countries when the governments and Salucia experienced a substantial loss in revenue due to COVID-19 pandemic. This agreement allowed low-income countries to temporarily suspend the bilateral government-to-government debt service. As it pertains to Salucia, it was for 100% of the amount of principal and interest due from April 2020 to December 2020. The government Salucia has won loan of Euro 9.6 million with the Angers-Français Development, AFD, namely the rehabilitation of the territory access roads. In November 2020, it was agreed by the IMF World Bank and G20 for the DSSI to be extended for six-month period up to June 2021 and Salucia benefited from this. In April 2021, during the G20 spring meetings, it is further agreed to extend the DSSI for another six-month period up to December 41, 2021. To date, the government Salucia has saved the total of Euro 790,036.97. Under this initiative, accordingly, in order for the DSSI to be binding, we are here today to sign the memorandum of understanding with your government. The biannual debt service on the loan is approximately Euro 390,000 and the loan balance is 1.487 million at present. My government would like to extend its sincere appreciation to the government and people of the French Republic for their even support and collaboration in this and other endeavours. We look forward to strengthening our partnership and collaboration in the future.


This podcast is brought to you by LMU Munich Dear colleagues, Osborne and Clark have brought something with them, interesting giveaways, which can be taken as a dessert after the network. IBM, global entrepreneur and Osborne and Clark, thank you very much, because you allow us to start the network in a free space at the end. We are grateful to the Faculty of Alumni Affairs of the LMU, Jura Lumni. This allows us to record today's event. You have already seen the camera. The presentation and the discussion will therefore be called off on the platform iTunes U. If you are disinterested, just take a look at our website cloudinvestingsupposition.de in the next weeks. Or you will be informed when and where exactly you can call off the appointment. An important clue. We will then open the podium discussion for questions from the auditorium. Your questions are all recorded, but only in tone. If you necessarily want to take a picture, you have to jump forward. Please do not try to understand this as a challenge. If you have any questions about iTunes U, which is not always understood, just share them with us. Then we will of course cut the answer accordingly. So that is a very important clue. We are here in the protected space and only that will be publicly repeated, where you do not repeat. Finally, I would also like to thank the media partner. We have won one German start-ups and the other Svencher Capital Magazin. Then I would like to welcome Benjamin Heimlich, the editor, who also takes some notes from the current magazine. That I am currently working on the theme of crowd in all facets. You can also take these notes at the reception to the dessert. Yes, I am happy that we are now coming to the panel. And we will have a good half an hour here on the panel. But then the questions to the many experts of the crowd, the 200 people who are here, professional voters, student start-ups, open. From 19 o'clock we will then give ourselves to the reception hall in the second floor and can exchange there for networking if you still have questions that have not been answered. Of course, you are also the experts to be available. Yes, the experts, I can just start from the left to the right. Greetings from your point of view. Christian Tala-Wolski from Wellington Partners. I am the investment manager with technology and also internet and software. And also myself with my own experiences in the field of crowd funding, investing. Next to it is Steffen Reitz, business director of SMARCALF GmbH. A founded here from the Munich region with my own experience, also with crowd investing platforms or one platform. Then right next to me is Herr Seiberlnd, partner of Early Bird Venture Capital. Early Bird Venture Capital is also very strong in the field of internet, consumer web. Invested, which is of course also a branch of the crowd investing platform. And then to my left, the representative of the crowd investing platform, Stringe von Kompanisto from Berlin and Herr Herzog from Köln, business development investment. Now you may miss the representative of SeedMatch. Herr Vogel unfortunately has to say no for urgent and terminal reasons. Yes, I must start. Maybe first of all to try a little bit, the basic principle of existing platforms here in Germany, to discuss something more. Herr Herzog, you are one of the first in the market with Innovestment and the number is also very successful. Your platform has a special principle, namely the option principle. Maybe you can explain that. Microphone is on, just speak. Now? Yes, very good. Yes, very simple. We were simply from basic problems. Somehow, how do you evaluate the startup? Well, it is well known that methods like the Conquest for Methods are bad to be used, because there is no history. Accordingly, we solved it. About an auction process, we have a bit of a classical financial market oriented, where we are simply about a book building process, the right price over the collective, the collective price readiness of the investors. Then exactly that we have tried to create. In a form where individual, over-optimistic investors, where it does not lead to the fact that they really pay this over-optimistic price, but that the contribution is, so to speak, the last and cheapest offer. Yes, that is what really makes up our platform. So that we say, we cannot determine that. We have a clever crowd and we design a marketplace so that it comes to wear. Yes, thank you very much. Mr. Zwinge, I will ask you the same question. If you think of a composer, then you will think of the so-called pooling principle. This is an introduction to you. Maybe you can explain briefly what this has to do with it. Yes, I would like to. So when you talk about a composer, then it is certainly part of the USP pooling. I will summarize it a bit further. Namely VC compatibility. That was always the approach, also from the company, that you start with the participation models, which are also optimized for connection finance through venture capital societies. This is the first step, of course, that the contracts are already designed so that the following financial rounds do not make any difficulties. That means, in particular, such important points such as compensation or that the participation can end at the exit point and numerous contract runs that are not too short. First in the last-out principle. The second important point is that you also pool the investors. So as it is traditionally done in the offline participation landscape, when many people participate in a startup, you pool them offline and we do the same online. That means that investors close a pooling association with us, which just shows that if it has to come again to changes, with the participation contracts in addition to connection finance rounds, that these changes can then be carried out very quickly in an online process within seven days. And VC companies therefore do not have to deal with a large number of participants directly, but have one central approach partner, namely companies that can also carry out this pooling and change process. This is also a point that Mr. Reitz certainly will also have something to say about it. SmartCive has experienced how difficult it can be if you have to address many involved individuals so that the contracts are also arranged on connection finance rounds. That was now a thought transfer, because Reitz wanted to give the word and first of all give it to the prime positive experiences with the seed financing of the investment platform SeedMatch questions to the VC team. We will come to that later. If you would like to briefly tell us about your experiences and maybe also a side question, did you actually think of the prospect of this as a startup? I think I knew best of all how to stabilize one's book, so not really what prospecting is, because under what circumstances a prospect is necessary. I mean, the advantages of crowdfunding are actually on the hand. We are in a country where there are now a few universities that write big entrepreneurship, which wish that more foundations take place, but in the early stage phase, especially pre-seed, very, very little capital is so on. Germany is simply a country with relatively little business interest and in which the financing of the first months, the first years are all different than easy. We are lucky that there are foundations. They help a little over the first months or years away for those who can get together, especially in the portfolio of the state budget. However, it is afterwards for many startups who just need time until they have a prototype. They need time until they really develop to some extent competent entrepreneurs, extremely difficult. And then again to go to the parents and relatives or friends or sell the car is somehow saved or it is often not very easy. And that's why crowdfunding portal, in my opinion, is extremely necessary for the German financing landscape. And I think it's a fantastic initiative and fantastic that this instrument has come up to the not very positive points. I'll probably get to that later. Yes, thank you very much. So as an entrance statement, Mr. Talowolsky, you are yourself active at Berlin Crowd, how you could read a personal news. What kind of experiences do you have as a VCE representative as a private man in the field of crowdfunding or investing? Then I'll start with the simple part. The commitment at Berlin Crowd is purely private. Just like last summer, I also worked on two investments at SeedMatch, each 250 euros. And what I just enjoyed personally, I really have to say, because I just wanted to support the entrepreneur with it. At one point I no longer have such a big hope that it will happen, or that it will be meaningful in the future. But on the other hand, I'm really good at things that it's not just a good idea, but that the team is really there to deliver something reasonable. So, what the professional side of the whole is, I am absolutely in the opinion that crowdfunding is an instrument that is good for the market, because it opens the market for people who don't have a deal flow, on a professional level like me, or my colleagues, or business angels. And we saw that in the national map that people are spreading everywhere, in the entire federal republic, and then being able to participate in a start-up in Aachen, or Munich, or Cologne, or anything else. And I think that's good, first of all, because it's a democratization, it's a legalization, and it simply involves an exception with the topic of entrepreneurship, reasons and so on. And many people don't have access to it, and that's their way to get access to it. We ourselves haven't invested in a start-up that has done a crowdfunding two years ago. There's no explicit reason for it, it just hasn't been given up yet. And I think that's just a question of time until it's given up. As I said, there's no reason for it. And to connect to the discussions with the venture capital compatibility, I think that's all a question of the start-up itself. If it's simply a great thing and you want to invest, then you can find a way to invest, no matter what the levels are. If the levels are too high, then it's not good. So Ceterus Paribus is, of course, easier to invest in, where the levels are lower, but there's no Ceterus Paribus. They're all individuals, the start-ups, who are there to invest in the venture capital firm. Yes, thank you very much. Mr. Seibold, if you hear what needs to be done on the platforms or in the future, do you want to exchange and sell a crowd-investing platform in a venture capital company? I'm just kidding. It's a difficult question. I'm not quite sure, to be honest, I have to admit in all the details, including the regulatory framework conditions that are coming to us or that are coming to the branch in the crowd-investing sector, I don't think we can really see through it. I don't think we can really see through it. But I think that the venture capital in the last few years had a sense of justice, especially because there was a certain quality process about which investors could be led to a rather intransparent market, the one that was led by the start-up fund of course, there were a lot of institutional investors engaged in venture capital funds. But there were at least in the early stages a lot of private investors who invested in venture capital funds. But then, there were a lot of people who invested in it, and then the venture capital business, the institutional one, or rather the professional one, there was a lot of shift. At the latest, since 2003, 2004, and you have the impression that the start-up market is no longer really reachable for the private investors, except for business angels. Of course, this is a very exciting topic for private investors who want to engage in start-ups. Of course, the question is always, is the risk adequate, is the cost adequate, and we will certainly discuss it intensively today. Yes, thank you very much. First of all for these opening statements, I would now like to look at some aspects of the functional way and also from regulatory perspectives what it means. Again, the question to the representatives of the platforms, how do the investors benefit at the end? It has already been talked about a lot of the risks, total failure, human self-consumption, have already benefited from their platforms, has it already been paid back for a profit, or is it only the loss account if you may explain how it works in detail and whether there are already experience values. Yes, there was not an exception in the measure. In fact, we have been on the market for a good year. Accordingly, the start-ups are old. Maybe there are individual cases, so we do not have a large-scale or huge exit solution. On the one hand, they are still working on it. There is no way away from us. Yes, it is similar to Companisto for the first time in six months online. Therefore, even the years of the last year have not yet been set up. Therefore, of course, there is no exception. But it is also not expected by start-up companies in the first years. You have to be honest. In the first years, you do not profit from it. They are traditionally re-invested for the growth of the company. And that is also true. Especially then, if you are involved in the company's value, that is, if you are involved in it, if there is an exit later or after the period of participation, then you have to calculate it correctly. I give Dr. Honof and Dr. David Malthipel is not the right one from our point of view, but the IDWS1 process, the Institute of Business Reviews, what we use. If you do that, you can of course also profit. But basically investments in start-ups are not a tool or a way to make money short-term. It is a long-term investment. You have to be aware of that. If I can ask you a question what a long-term investment is and the investor becomes a clown and needs liquidity, there is a possibility to give the investment back. Can you trade with the shares, as usual? Is there also the next market entrance of workforce before you have chosen a model where you can expose the shares on the platform yourself? What do you think will be the result of your decision? We have a chance for start-up after 7 years. It does not change after 25 years, like a movie or something. That was the first one. The next one is not yet available in the market. I believe that the innovation will develop well. I think it is one of the basic functions that the market has to offer. You have to be aware of the function of crowd-investing for private investors. Crowd-investing is a possibility for private investors similar to venture capital companies or business angels in start-up companies. For business angels, venture capital companies and also for the founders, there is not the possibility to stop their participation as soon as possible. There is no secondary market for that. It is similar to investing over crowd-investing platform. Investing over crowd-investing platform is actually long-term. It is possible to sell and transfer as soon as possible. But there is no trading platform available as soon as possible. When the market of Bergwurst is back, we will see how it goes. I had researched on the Internet yesterday evening. Let us know from your point of view what were the innovative forms at the time? Was it a necessity entrepreneur or more a fan entrepreneur? What were the chances and risks? Let us know about compatibility later. We had no alternatives. We were 18 months after start-up on the basis of the university. We did not have the opportunity to win business engines. We had three young business engines who were naive to believe in us. We had already burned the foundation and we needed money for the growth plans. We did not know anything about the competition. We had no choice. We got the opportunity to be on the side of the company. We had three weeks to choose from. We were actively thinking and getting criticism. We thought we would make critical decisions to see the side of the company. The adventure was more or less blue-eyed and we had to pay for it. It was the right choice. I have a question for the VCs. The start-ups who present themselves on the platform will be told by the financial advisor that they do not have the potential for the right financing. The right financing begins with a decent A-finance through venture capital. How do you see that? It is a completely different way of start-up business with a completely different market potential. Is that a pre-stage or how do you estimate the start-ups? As far as you know, they finance the platform. I have looked at a series of projects that are set up in SeatMatch, Companisto and InnoVestment. About half of them would be too small for us or the Radafallen. The capital investment is justified. But the other half I would like to say I would like to look at how they set up and how they position themselves. They will be tested for us. What is a bit questionable is that I believe the investors are not aware what it costs to invest. For example, I have found a particular investment that is set up on their platform. In the last ten years I have been dealing with nanotechnology investments. I have not seen any investment that has amounted to 5 or 10 million. I would have the question the first 100,000 euros and what will happen? When is it possible to invest on a platform that is similar to the platform? And if capital investment is needed are the regulations set up so clean that we can invest free of charge and we can finance it. The question to Christian Talowolsky, how do you manage the startups that offer file? Yes, the question that entrepreneurs should always ask when they take on a financing is what I want to achieve with this financing and how long it takes and what I have to show to be able to do the next financing so that I can do it in a good way to other capitalists or to my own investor and to say I have more money and I think that is too short because 100,000 euros is very little in fact you can certainly reach more with 100,000 euros than before five years or three years because the technologies there are distribution platforms that didn't exist before iTunes, Facebook or Spotify that means you can build an app with 50 or 100,000 euros you can realize a reasonable front-end you can even hire someone you have your own founder team but you haven't really launched and you have sold the 100,000 and that's money and you stand there and you want to launch and then you go to venture capitalists and say we have built it with the 100,000 of crowdfunding and now we want to launch and then everyone says venture capitalists nice but now you have to launch and then we'll see how it goes three or six months and I think that's the problem that's why you shouldn't underestimate these crowdfunding things and I don't understand if you did that but at least it helped a bit one thing that the issue whether the crowd can choose the start-ups correctly I think intentionally it's on the side that the crowd can do it right I think what the crowd can't do like an expert like Wolfgang Sergoltz-Gadavient had for ten years in proper knowledge in the field of financing of certain industries or how we, who are working in all of Europe can see a deal flow in Europe and have similarities regarding how the market is in other countries how the teams are in other countries if there are teams that already and then there's someone who's two years later on and we have similarities that the crowd doesn't have otherwise I think it's a good start-up instrument Mr. Zwingi, you wanted to say something exactly, it's about to clarify what kind of companies are on the crowdinvesting platform I can only speak for companies but it's also similar on other platforms companies that haven't built their products yet so they need 100,000 euros to build a product but the companies already have a product they're all already on the market they also have almost all of them at least for us all business angel are already in the state-owned companies have six-star financing rounds behind them there are no companies that need money to finish the product so it makes a difference it's also possible that you collect a higher sum than 100,000 euros for companies that currently have 150,000 euros of funding at Seed Match Garp is in the past where he already mentioned the advantages also financing rounds over 200,000 euros so the platforms are not bound to these 100,000 euros limits but nevertheless it is of course that a crowd-investing alone is usually not enough to make a company successful so crowd-investing, company startups are simply on funding through venture capital companies you have to say that very clearly and that's why we started the focus of the company that these funding rounds can be possible and it happened to us that the first company that we financed for six months immediately got funding in a six-star, clearly six-star area so that's really an eye-catch then you have to make sure that the way to the VCs remains then let's get the cat out of the bag the pain the pain from smarke how long have the 100,000 euros been given out and there were difficulties that were the first models maybe connected with the successful financing of smarke one more step back I don't think that all startups are fighting and saying start-up is start-up and every start-up wants a VCs funding when we started and thought about doing a technology that is a bit complicated we had no idea how we would finance it in my first financial plan that I have six people, 200,000 euros in that case the start-ups that you see on seedmatch a lot of start-ups have solid business models like B2B or some pilot customers they don't want to go through the ceiling for them it's fine to have a solid business with 18 people you can't say that VCs is the target there are models consumer models, internet business models that are very long-term where you actually live for the last two or three years especially if you have big dreams but it's not every founder and that's exactly the problem not every platform has such a thought and of course from my conversations with the platform to start some of the platforms have never really thought about it at least never with a bit of effort so they were just models where you said that it's VCs the one who can I don't think venture capitalists talk about it they made a lot of mistakes and said we're going to make a model it's going to fit in the future and we don't have the money and I think that's the next topic many founders of these crowdfunding platforms have very little money a lot less than the 100.000 that we've collected or that the company wants to collect more expensive candidates that have to pay 200, 300, 500 euro per hour but didn't have the money they asked their friends in the corner and they told the seller and that's always very, very difficult and that's why it's actually a damn complex legal model not only in Germany, but also in other countries and especially the participation model that the Germans have chosen with direct, silent participation is a damn boring topic and I think most have underestimated it and that's also my suggestion to the crowd, the crowd initiative is fantastic but many went into the market and thought they would be the VCs alternative and that's what they said if you want to collect more than 30.000 or at least in the next 12 years that's a lot to the blue-eyed especially the mouth but maybe again that would be the topic compatibility with venture capital then again a little detail then again insist what was now without to insist too much but roughly said what was the goal and what was the goal roughly said what was the basic difficulty for the market it's not all bad there are platforms that do it very well today you have to say not always the one who writes the loudest does the best marketing has also put most legal time and legal effort into it I know platforms that I think are excellent and I also think that it will pass as I said there were child diseases that are probably diseases that lead to some of the children who were fed and maybe won't survive that's my opinion for us it was that the child had to to drive out again we had to move back participation because some things just for the VC that's why it's exciting how Mr. Talewoski thinks about it just wasn't an accident and I think our VC is one of those who doesn't think that the hardest dog in the market is known but he actually said that the models can't go in because an exit is never possible for the company to lead in 10 years and VC has only one interest and that's the company after 5 to 10 years or after 4 to 7 years to sell at some point ideally with the radite and that's why there were a few topics that were specifically said pooling of forgetfulness pooling and an exit scenario that was never thought of they were absolutely hindering for a VC forward to the existing platforms to put the opportunity to do the right thing the question to the VC what are the core criteria what is important from the VC so that there are no difficulties with crowd-investing investments at startups I think that it's I'll stay with my statement that it's depending on the case that it's always a function of how hot is the deal what do I want to invest and if that's my deal of the year then I'll do everything to be able to participate in this 144-year-old and to be able to go back together and if I have to drive to the 3rd in Bavarian then I don't have a problem with that I don't think that's a big problem and probably you would the half of this participation I mean it would probably be about 100,000 euros if you offer the people 200,000 euros the half would probably accept that because they say and the other half you have to drive so so always under the measure please wait again if that's the hottest deal of the year if it isn't then of course it's a bit more difficult I don't know if it was the hottest deal of the year I don't know about that but that's exactly what the VCM is you can then participate in this 144-year-old in our case this 136-149 I don't know but I don't think you have any idea what kind of a beginner you are who still has a few weeks of cash 144 guys who don't know much about the VCM and also don't think about an exit but you have a solid winning participation which is of no interest to the VCM because no VCM wants to win four years he wants to earn four years and the topic is yes, it has to be reversed and you can't imagine this pain if you have a startup or if you try to reach 144 people in the republic and then at some point you have to go over the handball coach of the son and his uncle at Facebook that's a crazy start maybe you still want to go with the second hottest deal how far are you ready to go as you can see, it's pretty brave to assume that every asset is very common I don't think it's always common and that's really difficult that's why I think we should keep an eye on how such crowdfunding models should be strict so that they become compatible at the end of the day and I see a series of connection points I think we all agree that's an exciting form especially for the early phase but it's important that investors in the early phase are clear what will become the middle-class story of this company and ultimately it's not that difficult to form it there are certainly different industries different types of companies and there is also a whole group if they follow the path what can come of it and if I take this nanoparticle this is just a basic topic there might be a product there there will be a bit of money but in order to make it big there is still a lot I think industrialization is necessary I don't want to talk about this example but just to make it clear different industries have different requirements then to a few standard topics that I have with it to come again for example the defense protection that is guaranteed in the crowdfunding it simply doesn't work because I can't make the calculation against the future it simply won't work secondly I think you have to in the early phase a mechanism that helps this crowdfunding more or less to have in the company there is such an old US-American word or something like that if there are more than four or five investors in the company then it won't be a success the most successful cases were those where three or four partners have financed to the end therefore to start with over 100 it doesn't just do that simply a pool meeting for the next round is really essential the next point is how do I deal with all the information and transparency obligations I mean, in the end everyone can invest over the crowd even their competitors can invest over the crowd and if you see the things of the company then it's easy for them to swear at their customers he doesn't have money and is barely able to do it for the next month if everything goes on or maybe he can find other information that can be found on the platform for his own purposes that means it will be difficult and that is certainly a topic that we would have if we were to get a company we would clearly rule which information rights go where to ultimately get maximum protection for the company can now show a series of other topics but I would leave it and go on Yes, the platforms, what do you do that your investment VCE competes? Of course we don't have a protection that was clear to us that it can lead to problems we somehow from the beginning we had the approach that we believe that the less people there are the less situations accordingly we had we had a maybe untypical cloud investing of 1,000 euros we sometimes had investments where people with tickets who are also sometimes on the market as an angel or how they are active how they are probably not classical but somewhere in between they know the medium as an angel accordingly yes, that makes it a little easier because such rules as I said, protection of investment if we work on it pooling is not currently we will see in what form can make sense are also especially in the dialogue and only to the thing that we don't want to drive around there is already a large six-star contract in advance through research funding product finished and it is a co-investment Yes, I think we are very important points also from Mr. Reitz especially and of course also from Mr. Seibold the points that were mentioned the competence of a cloud investing platform business actually has to be legal you have to be able to set up more participation contracts and can also further develop that's enough if you let it do it once you have to be able to further develop for us it is so that both reasons David Roth has and I are both right-wing also from this area I was previously at CMS Hasche Siegler CMS Transactions Private Clients and Society Law and therefore we have from the beginning of course also a contract model chosen what is also compatible with connection funding these points that Mr. Seibold mentioned are all from the beginning that means of course improve the participation of investors that is also fair of course it is companies only give information to the investors have to which they also want to give out that is, there will be no now reliable for example given out there is no reporting in this classical sense, so investors actually do not get additional reliable information but the company decides alone which information will be given out and then this third point which is very essential is that this crowd this large amount of participation with us are up to 500 who participate is not a problem because we are pooling so we make associations standard from the beginning we always had in all participation contracts that the participants ultimately so against the start-up as a single participant that is, in earlier financial rounds they were pooled that is, only the company had directly and then under participation contracts to the individual investors so that the start-up has only one contract partner now since Monday we do a large financing round of over 100,000 euros also take the implementation of the IEFM guideline also makes pooling much more difficult and we do it in pooling just through a practical initiative of the association the very specific decision-making processes so this case of Mr. Reitz so with us you would not have the investors, the 500 investors but you would have once made a decision on the website it would have taken seven days and afterwards it would have been through and so it has to be you have to make sure that very quickly individual decisions can be made according to your opinion it is only then critical to ask 500 people who know the industry perfectly from a potential exit in five to seven years because they know exactly how we know the deal flow national and international because they know where the technologies go the trends and so on because they know what the team is basically to trust to let these 500 people vote in doubt many of them will decide for an earlier cash-out to ask individuals not just for the lucky model but for the 500 partners of the biggest in the world but that is not necessary I have already said it is two levels that means the contracts must be in the first level so that they are compatible that was definitely not for you there was no there was a warning protection as Mr. Seibolt says it is simply untrustworthy that is not the case with us from the beginning that is not a problem with Doxtor without someone being asked because the contracts are so designed and it is a very renowned investor we are not talking about someone who has no idea the most important thing is from the beginning that there is no problem and then as an anchor that if the contracts still have to be changed because there is a special financial constellation then you have to have a mechanism yes, that is right if you know from the beginning where you want it and that you are at the question is everything on venture capital or are there startups who are maybe already financed with the crowd investing or who choose other financial forms why still? yes, exactly there are companies with a bit of history that simply need growth capital I think basically the market because two market participants of the financial landscape can not satisfy the needs the angel who are either ineffective or inefficient maybe you have to discuss it and other banks who are not allowed to have capital in two or three that is why there is a financial gap and what is interesting for companies but also for companies who just grow in segments what is not interesting for them and that is the reason why the market is there and crowd investing fills a white spot I think it is below the financial volume and this white spot must fill out crowd investing and that it is necessary that in all limited parts of the financial landscape a transition capability must be achieved I am completely agree I mean the interesting question when I can briefly talk about the startups who are not like you and who grow solid with 10, 12, 15 percent year by year what happens when you invest in a portfolio diversification with the investors we have heard it before when someone invests and classically survive not all startups there is a quota after 5 years 90 out of 100 startups no longer really live or at least dive for themselves then there is only the probability of crowd investments not just less and that is why the ones don't start and then I have problems and that is why the question is what are the models that are right and that make sense for the micro-investor the companies in the market who have the scenario that they continuously generate money the companies in the market who already have a bit of history the customers who just want to invest and the like and I think with them the probability is much lower because I already know the team has been in business model for a few years so with a look at the time I would now call to the final round and then open the discussion the auditorium you have the opportunity to ask questions I would like to take the position of Professor Klöhn regarding the regulation perspective you have several points especially the goals that you let the investors take the risks what you want to profit from your expectations especially to protect the investors for yourself or to bring them to diversify their portfolio that's why my final question starts with the platforms what do you do specifically for the investors or if you listen to them you could almost say you are more of the partner of the venture capital than your company well the meaningful participation model that you can actually profit from is the best investor if you have a participation model that you don't profit from the exit then you don't need to invest more that's the first reason for us a very important point is that we don't give up on a minimum participation it's really a very important point because investors from the beginning want to diversify that's what we do it's clear that it's better to invest in many companies than to put everything on a map and if you are forced to invest in higher sums then you can only diversify and for us you can buy a share with 5€ and you can diversify it's the way that the investment sum is 200€ the average portfolio is clearly over 400€ you can see that even with the small sums our investors share the shares on many different startups which is basically the risk to reduce that's why it's very offensive that it's about risk that's clear to everyone who invests in us only the people are ready to take risks it's not like someone who knows that he can lose the whole money that's why they don't invest they all know that but they are ready to invest also because the shares I invest in a small amount of 50€ and I don't have a problem if I lose it completely because then I love my life as much as I did before the investment sum you always have to do with the investment sum we do several things our first approach is to hire people who are a bit qualified either self-employed that was our first approach the second approach is that if you find something similar we are the only ones who always write out high risk class or at least we do it often the next is the minimum contribution of 1000€ yes, it will be harder to build a portfolio but it has an effect and it's not to discuss it on the side if there are marginal shares I don't look at it that much I read a business plan if I want to invest 5€ not as long as if I want to invest 5.000€ that's an approach we do where we are currently we are still testing and what really fits in we are exploring anyway the investors are already asking which investments have similar we are always tracking the combination what we are doing at the moment is really another question similar questions if you have to go so far that some investors say no, it doesn't work and why do we do that we want them to make a conscious decision we also believe that there are enough resources that are still available but we want to make sure that there is a conscious decision the next question is she herself has already lived through to some heights and depths the investing crowd investing platforms will certainly also be aware of it that they have long-term satisfaction can you from your more than 10-year experience in the selection of startups in the management of startups in the process with your investors maybe the little brothers of the crowd investing platform is there any recommendation on the way on the aspect of transparency the protection of investors I have two if I may the one on the on the operational side I think it is very important especially the startups who are still in a very early phase of their formation where the business is first slowly formed really to grab the people under the arms as far as you can and maybe also in addition to that so really operational assistance whether it is only sales, sales seminars whether it is in the area of KPI and reporting is simply that already in a very early phase the awareness is awakened for this with the startups and B also the platform but maybe even overall portfolio and reporting can build up which is not only useful on the transparency side but also against the investors but also gives themselves possibilities for control to be able to intervene the second I think what if it is now the topic crowd investing the first cases come whether it is only pleidens which are more or less maybe also due to the press that the platform are well prepared for it and I really mean crisis PR to have the most important contacts in the press on the short call to have to be able to really briefly switch on because nothing is worse than somewhere because of an agreement or otherwise some things in front of the press and then it suddenly means that it is a company found thing or something I'm sorry I just wanted to really that is so important because it burns again the whole market for more or less long not to be so if there is a tip from me today then it is him who wants to be I can only connect to him we also had a whole series of critical topics discussed and also heard that I already set up the existing platforms we still have one other very, very important point in our market capital scarcity is characterized is the pay-to-play regulation that is to say only the one who continues to pay and continue to finance makes the law that sounds brutal but if the company has to fight with the insolvency tomorrow there is not much to discuss therefore I believe and all offers that I have studied so far the investors to the north that can come at some point where they should shoot to secure their investment and that I think we should prepare early and not only when you're in a crisis because when you're in a crisis you think about it one or the other investors and they know that it can come and I have to deal with such a pay-to-play topic to secure my money then it may be prepared by our stock exchange and with that the start-up in Munich is king and has the last word which honor, thank you I'll start with my conclusion I think my conclusion is already said I think crowdfunding is absolutely gigantic and necessary but I believe it has to be considered from all metallic points that's why I have four wishes there are no requirements I'm not in the position I think what the platform is I think all crowdfunding platforms should eventually grow and from the start-up that has a long-term interest and that doesn't mean as quickly as possible as many projects as possible have really good views and I'm not sponsored by Ausbau & Cloud but I would like to talk to many of them with such good views because it's been really blue-eyed so please consult good views and ask them what a VC wants to see later or maybe directly talk to a VC partner I don't think that's done from the micro-investors crowdfunding I think you should be aware that there is a high risk that if the first plans go which is statistically not a question it's just a question of time then there will also be a small return then there won't be crowdfunding anymore everyone should be aware and just as you have your action portfolio diversified and not only in options you should also do it at start-ups it won't be without a risk the third thing that starts as such is sustainability I think we will get there in time in 6-12 months it will look different and we were with the first and last but not least we also heard the status I think it has to be a certain regulation that actually creates a model that no longer builds up from a black spot but creates a model that this financing vehicle deals with a certain seriality and I think under the Obama government what the German government should look at in a few minutes well, thank you very much for your final statements now you have the chance to ask questions from the audience we have a portable microphone my colleague Michael Malik exactly and of course you can also ask Prof. Klöhn and Dr. Horne to present the documents and we just have just in time please stand up and introduce yourself and as I said if the question should not be published on the internet by iTunes please say it I have just written a doctorate on the subject of crowdsourcing and risk in universities in this case I am especially interested in the point of Spam intelligence of course a lot in the investor sector whether it is similar there that on the different platforms there is a lot of hopping that there are always different investors and the number of investors is limited and the other question that is connected whether the investors, platforms Kickstarter, Indiegogo which also presents a kind of product or project specific crowdfunding whether there there will not be a verticalization in market specializations as also said by Mr. Seibold already knows for a very long time whether there is a crowdfunding platform that only nanotechnology or the nanotechnology industry is involved and how you deal with such topics I would be very interested Yes, so it is the first time we ask our investors so often that they actually like us and it is so that of course the participants also use other platforms so about 30% of the investors who are registered with us are also registered with Siegmeister and they look at it all and they probably do the same I do believe that there is a verticalization through the crowdfunding platform but now it seems to be that some have more B2B models and others rather B2B models how it will develop in the end I think I'm not sure if it will come I'm not sure if it will come but it is very simple because there are not so many companies in every industry that have their own platform some industries are very capital intensive it does not apply anyway I am skeptical whether there will be specialized platforms the crowdinvesting market is not so big that you can use dozens of platforms you can see that now there are three platforms Companisto, they collect 99% of the capital all others do not collect anything and the platforms after that are all failed you have to say and the first question was with the platform platform please use the microphone otherwise you will not be shown here because with Kickstarter and Indiegogo you have to be successful and the equity will be asked because you can be very successful without giving equity and can enter the market and jump over the classic crowdfunding market you have to say Kickstarter and Indiegogo crowdfunding is not crowdinvesting that is why it is not possible in the USA even if you start crowdinvesting in the USA Kickstarter and Indiegogo will be very difficult to finance start-up companies you know that with Kickstarter and Indiegogo there are also certain exceptions these competitors you have in Germany there are crowdfunding platforms in Germany and they collect only a small part of the crowdinvesting platform there is start next in Germany they collect a lot less money it is also fair and reasonable if someone collects money to earn money I want to give money even if he earns money please give me money to earn money if I do further questions my name is Roland Mayer Finnelli I am founder of a start-up in the mobile e-commerce area and I love to finance with the crowdfunding platforms not only because of the money it is nice to have 100.000€ but also to use the network character in my opinion Mr. Reitz how far could you expand your investors as a lever, as multipliers for your ideas? I think it depends you can have a lucky short but if someone invests 250€ you should not expect that he will have some connections to the politics or to telecom or whatever he does maybe he has Corponisto we have good investors that they give feedback they test the product in the early phase you should not think that the 144 people are as good as 100.000 others they are just 144 testers and one of them has nice contacts but no one is there who introduced us to the next investor or built up a strategic partnership it was not the case it should not be the case Ok, thank you maybe the hint is to ask questions short answers and at 19 the buffet is open Hello, my name is Jan Krukmeier from the S&T investment services I have a short question you have the Stichwortland RFM and in this case if I understand it correctly you have changed your financial model short question have you even received an account if that would work longer in the future and maybe briefly to Dr. Klöhn do you see a tension to what you imagine and what will be under the RFM in the future we have in fact changed the model for different reasons to make it bigger but also to the RFM straight line you have to know the RFM straight line is a European straight line the implementation law has to be in force in the end of June there is a type of demand how a fund has to be built up and other regulations that are not to be implemented for crowd investing platforms because they are not to be targeted but to fund private equity companies so we have chosen a model which is not under the RFM straight line we have our previous implementation model already with the BAFIN approved proactively also received a corresponding negative test have now changed the model are very sure that it is KWG-Erlaubnis-Free it is a patriarchal approach as Dr. Klöhn said unscrupulous prospect-free and from there we are on the legal safe side but as I said, the dialogue to BAFIN is also available from our side this model we have not tested again negative let's do it I can answer very briefly the RFM straight line has no specific regulation of crowd investing and so far, I would say, there is hardly any improvement it's just a part where crowd investing will take place but you can't speak of a specific regulation that will further the market now Dr. Grassen-Rudel from IWOBIS has reported here I can't imagine I have a question about the two platforms if you have so many questions how many of them have a real interest in rendition what will come out and how many of them will come out even though you would certainly understand how many have made it out of fun and how many have a real interest in rendition do you know that? I think there are both in mixed form in one person that's the first one but what we have asked alternatively is if we now undertake the pre-society rendition or similar to the platform would they invest that's what we asked actively and that's a long way off it was the most unattractive variant of all it can be that other investors would invest on the platform but at the time the risk is too big that it won't be financed from our free-text fields that we ask during the registration people will say I want to invest city-wide I want to promote companies but I think that's the main reason for the rendition how many of them understood what mechanisms and when they will earn money because I have read one contract you have to have a lot of experience to understand when something will come out and when not of course there are things that we ask in any case we understand what they are doing accordingly in the next week we have invited a few people some investors from us to talk qualitatively and to get that later it's a question that interests us from the mass I think we have about 50% the further company participation in our investors that's why not too careful but you just have to talk to them let's do that with our investors it's definitely a motivation for many people to participate that's of course a certain amount of expectation but also that you the corresponding company and also exactly this founder team possibly looking at it there are various motivations also social and political motivations that you help the starting point overall Germany but it's of course clear if he invests no matter what motivation he wants, if the startup is successful of course also a certain amount of expectation it's never invested and he says I don't care if I get money if the company is successful or not so, has Roman Hubergeschätz reported on the Bavarian capital? I would like to take this word from the very beginning Mr. Kastnermann I am now after a financial law to know who speaks to me that means you can prove to me who is responsible for all your participation I would like to answer that the money laundering law also knows a number of clauses and the crowd investing platforms don't fall under it because they don't fall under the definition it depends on how you build the platforms I don't fall under the definition Mr. Herzog, do you want to go straight? Good, then a young founder reported on the Bavarian capital not only men, but also women My name is Silke Heiß from Team Sitmap My question is or a presentation was announced 60 successful financing 2 even with full financing My question is 1.5 years when it comes to the possibility how long do you need to evaluate it? It is really a nice place so that you can save money the relationship That's always the question when you count a request sometimes it's really like that we get 5-10 emails in our corresponding email address every day but there is a lot obviously that you don't want to go much further in the end you also look at all the things first of all hard criteria companies already founded we have a criteria where we say those are hard criteria they have to be based on the platform so you have the most things relatively efficient and quickly answered I can connect to that In the last 6 months we have had a lot of 3-digit applications it has been extremely accepted after the acquisition of Doxter a lot of big startups have already made a lot of investments with us so it has increased a lot we have up to 7 funding 2 running at the moment so you can see the quota of startups on the website is very very low there is a lot of work we have an extra investment manager who used to be at KPMG and who answered this startup as soon as possible but it can take 1-2 weeks but the process is much faster than it is now in the classical forward funding I don't know how it will be but it will take over 6 months to get out at Bavaria it will be faster otherwise Mr. Huber, please now on the right side hello I just asked a question whether there is any help with companies or investment or if there is the trade agreement in the USA or if there is any help I don't know what a prospect is here with me and it makes it quite difficult to make an extensive presentation of the company especially in the case of companies basically you have to every founder or entrepreneur to get a startup as Mr. Tala Wolsky said we are also very happy to support the startups with specialized applications that was also the case with our startups of course we also help and support what the profile is for example but we have to say it makes sense there are a few companies that are specialized in Osborne Clark and I think there are also startups packages that's enough for the sponsor or not or else I have to increase the calculation we still have time for two or three questions I'll stand up and I'll see maybe there's another question otherwise here Ulima thank you what interests me is that you have already loaded all the possible tasks as a platform what you should do better information management to the investors you get a real understanding between 5 and 10 percent provision and thus the 100,000 euros usually does not increase how do you finance yourself that's one thing of course from a business how do you do it by personal commitment to a certain point and fourth if the model should work then we have to increase the volume in any case of course the volume is to increase that's already happened if you break the 100,000 euros once so we will not stay at 150,000 euros the amount of funding will of course increase therefore it is also so that we lie at the provision of 9 percent we would also be able to take a higher provision people do that however I do not mind the provision and also have a carry rule start-ups are also necessary from Mr. Klöhn's opinion that the provision should be based on success that's the case next question a question to the two VC representatives for the term wisdom of the crowd do you really believe that the crowd with the many experienced investors actually offers a more valuable information for the founders and for the other investors who then could possibly participate in a VC test? the answer was very salamone for us the investment decision process is actually also in the crowd that means all my partners are sitting for the investment decision on the table why I believe that this is the most exciting company for a long time but often small factors for example I like the manager are they satisfied enough are they entrepreneurial enough and perhaps I have quite a few small details in the business model that could not be answered often such questions are decided whether or not to be invested so that's why I believe the expert tower should not be underestimated it's important because many questions are asked the others might not be asked but at the end of the day it's a bit of a crowd decision is always a good decision base that's why I think it's a good thing but on the other hand I can only decide how I know and I believe that on all platforms how far can I secure the quality of information enough or how far can I train the crowd so that we can help with the investigation of a case for example I can ask the business models how many of you will be produced can I say something I agree I think of course it's not different the VCs in that sense have a different model than a normal VC fund invested in 10, 15 companies within this fund during a crowdfunding platform in hundreds if not maybe even thousands of companies and that's why there is a different dynamic profile where you might be more on quantity than on a long, long test where you can put it in every detail what in my opinion after the target entrepreneurship in a very early stage will be more justified that's why VCs sometimes say we're still doing seed investments then it doesn't mean anything else that they will invest much earlier investment decisions or stages and that will also run in a faster process than if they invest somewhere in a second or third or fourth round and otherwise as I said in the process the VCs have the big advantage that they have a much more overview than the single crowd investor he might still see the other platform but there he won't see it again we'll see it again every year and then we can look into it more so the micro is no longer going out of thought a little bit about the time thank you very much the gentleman on the podium the crowd investing symposium should be an institution we want to repeat it gender-oriented like the LMU must of course also be a woman a lady sitting we have at least you are already there ladies and gentlemen thank you very much for your attention to the virginity of the target groups to bridge that you took interesting pulse information and what is still on the table that you can connect contacts we have in good age münchner business plan competition shrek-shrek evobismanier name signs with colorful dots yes, exactly which should give their status it is a time of fascination other roles slip and with further points I invite you once again to invite our sponsor IBM Global Entrepreneur and Osborne Clarke in the second upper floor in the local reception hall with fresco so the official name there she is waiting a little finger food buffet and drinks and please do not be shocked the light station we are just doing morning excursions follow the colleagues who are now in the second floor and my request would now be if you still have questions about the references we are going to go up together so that we do not get stuck here and only in half an hour at the buffet thank you very much


I'm Rebecca and this is the Junior Jump and we're going to talk about nurturing junior engineering talent. And we start by raising a couple of hands. How many of y'all wrote Ruby at your first job? Cool, quite a few people. As a developer? As a developer, yes, absolutely, at your first programming job. And how many of you have interviewed someone for what would become their first technical job? Cool, is anybody looking for their first programming job right now? Awesome, we do have like a couple of hands so y'all find those people. But this conversation is particularly relevant for us to have as Rubyists because over the past several years we've become the welcome gate to the programming community for a lot of people, including myself. And the Ruby community is really good at getting people excited about programming. We have Rails Girls and Tri-Ruby and all of these resources that have done what is really an unprecedented job of convincing people who never thought writing code could be for them, that they should give it a shot. And that's a lot of responsibility for us because not only are we training the engineers that we have to work with, but it's very likely that we're onboarding engineers who will probably train future engineers. And if you didn't raise your hand at the beginning of the talk, these are a few of the reasons your team might consider investing in engineers at the very beginning of their career. It can be really scary, but really rewarding. We get excited about the 20% of the work that's so boring, but the rest of your team doesn't really want to do it. This is true. And it's because we're smart, ambitious people who like to be able to do things on our own. And when you're getting into a large codebase for the first time, that's not necessarily a lot of things. And that's not necessarily the stuff that people with even three to five years experience find really fun. We're a little bit easier to find. This is true particularly for diverse engineers. Diverse engineers can be really difficult to hire laterally. If you're looking to diversify entrepreneurship, you might find the best way to do that is hiring a diverse person and growing them into the engineering leader that you need over several years. And teaching grows both teachers and learners. The best juniors ask smart questions and encourage the rest of your team to articulate implementation strategy, reconsider old opinions and try new things. However, a junior dev is not a chia pet. You have to help them grow. I want to talk specifically about preparing to bring a junior developer onto your team because I started thinking about this talk about a year ago when I was interviewing for my first tech job and everyone was asking me the same question which was what kind of resources do you need to succeed here? And that question is really scary. Don't ask it. What you're basically saying to the candidate is we think you're super cool and all, but the work we do here is really hard. How are you going to pull this off? Nobody can answer that. Not at their first job. You're the person who has experience coding in a production environment. You know what kind of resources are practical for your company. When you ask candidates this question, you're kind of asking them to have psychic abilities. They don't have access to that information. What they do have access to is the self-awareness of how they learn best. And that's totally a valid question to ask. Because when you're hiring at the junior level, you're not just hiring for coding ability. You're hiring for how enjoyable that person will be to teach. It's really hard when you're first starting out to know what resources are appropriate to ask for. These are some things that I came up with in my own experience while preparing for this talk. Books. Books can be great. Buying a junior developer a book is generally a lot cheaper than the amount of time in mentorship that you would pay to teach them something. Conferences. Send your junior developers here. Put them in a community that makes them feel really glad that they made this professional choice. Meetups are great as well. Meetups in the position where you have a really great space and a very senior team. Hosting meetups can surround your junior engineers with a little bit of a peer group that they might not be getting on the day-to-day. FaceTime, which can often be pairing if you have a pairing culture. I was lucky enough to have joined my team at a time when we were just barely small enough that I got to set aside 30 minutes for a single person on my team for them to just talk about whatever they thought it was important for me to know. You learn a lot about the values of your team members and conversations like that. You can always ask to pair and you can always make yourself available to pair. And explicit time to learn. I was a bartender before I was a programmer in Manhattan at a very, very busy bar.  It took me quite a while to figure out that learning was actually part of my job now. I got really into design patterns when I'd been working for two or three months and I sat down with my manager and I was like, is it okay if I take an hour a week to just read about the stuff that I really like? He actually laughed in my face and told me to take an hour a day instead. And the last thing is transcripts. I was really, really lucky to come onto a team that did transcriptions and they weren't there for me, they were there for someone else, but they're extraordinarily useful because when you don't have a lot of context, you can really only listen to your iOS engineer talk about functional Swift for so long before it starts going over your head a little bit. But you can learn so much by going back and looking at documents like that. Before you're hiring a junior engineer, you need to get your documentation game on point. Ask the guy who wrote it is not on point. You should generate a lot of paper when preparing for new engineers and then after they get a little bit of experience, they should generate that paper. This is important for not only all the very good reasons that having well documented code is important for everyone, but social reasons as well. When you're transitioning into a production environment, written documentation gives you something to do while you're waiting to be told what to do and it gives you hope that the answer is somewhere out there. Good documentation allows your junior developer to become more self-sufficient and less reliant on the mentorship of more senior members of your team. The second part of preparing for a new engineer might be the most technically difficult and that's planning an appropriate first project. Have you all ever heard of a round to it? As in when are you going to document that process? I'll get a round to it. It's really cheesy but my high school English teacher had one of these on her wall and I think it's helpful when it comes to thinking about how to assign work to new engineers. Assuming you have the resource to mentor your new engineer pretty closely for her first 30 days or so, her first project shouldn't necessarily be your easiest work. You're actually assigning work to a pair, a pair which hopefully includes one of your more senior engineers. That pair of engineers is a round to it. Give them the work that you've always been meaning to get around to implementing, but that isn't so mission critical that it has to be done on a really quick turnaround. What you're trying to do is balance exciting work that has to be done with supervision that makes you excited to show up every day and just boring stuff that fosters independence. Don't feel guilty about assigning boring stuff as long as it's not the only thing your junior is doing. Not only do you get to outsource the work that doesn't thrill you, but even if it is just objectively really dull, productivity and the ability to contribute independently is incredibly empowering. It's particularly useful if these kinds of tasks involve interacting with a broad section of your product because then they can serve to provide overview and context. When we're talking about projects, it's important to talk about admin tools and how your admin tools can be a great resource for finding work for new engineers. I've noticed just anecdotally from talking to people and reading industry blogs that teams that tend to roll their own and build a lot of things internally also tend to be really committed to growing talent. And I don't think those two things are entirely unrelated. Internal facing tools are a great place to look for appropriate projects for junior devs. While having a package environment set up and ready to go allows people to really hit the ground running, when you build a lot of internal tools, you're really creating a sandbox for both the mentoring of new engineers and for more established devs to experiment. I built that is easier to explain to your grandfather than a string extraction. It's important to give your juniors a story to tell when people ask what did you do today at your new job. Visible work is important and that brings us to mentorship which is probably the most difficult part of integrating a new person into an engineering team. The most valuable thing that a mentor can do is to lower the cost of asking questions. Most people who care about being good at something feel like they're failing at that thing almost all the time. Communicating with people who know more than you is really the only way to get rid of that feeling. Even if your organization is just you and the person you're hiring write it into your onboarding guide that every new engineer will be assigned a mentor to meet with once a week. Some people will take advantage of that resource more than others, but the ones who need it the most are the ones who would be least likely to ask for it. Making it explicit and default alleviates a lot of pressure for new engineers. When you're ready to make an offer to a new engineer your team needs to ask these three questions. What kind of resources can we give this person? How can we best help them? And how can they help us help them? And the answer to those second two questions should be made explicit in your team's documentation. How many people here did not have a mentor in their first engineering job? This is actually pretty good. We have a pretty scary number of people. But it's a pretty common situation. I was really lucky and my first job was at a pretty established company that could prioritize mentoring me. But some organizations might not be in that position when they decide to invest in junior talent. And that's okay too. If the only resource you can really offer a candidate is time to get up to speed. Our community is full of really independent, self-motivated learners that that might be great for. But make investment of that time explicit. Clarify those expectations. And also don't discount the value of peer and early stage mentorship. A really effective model that I've seen work in small startups is hiring two junior engineers who pair with each other all the time. It's hard to onboard a junior engineer. It's actually not that much harder to onboard two of them. Supplying your junior devs with peers can be just as meaningful as giving them role models. And as your junior devs get ready to take on more responsibility within your organization, one of the most concrete ways you can demonstrate their growth is by giving them an intern to mentor. But if you are in the other situation and you have an embarrassment of mentorship riches, you might want to look at you two. We can debate their musical merit all we want, but the structure of their public persona is pretty great metaphor for a mentorship team. You need a bono. This is the explicit mentor you've assigned to your new engineer. Much like bono is you choose explicit interface with the general public, this mentors your new engineers interface with all of the knowledge you need them to acquire. Mentoring your new dev is part of this person's job. And it's important that they consent to be evaluated on that. This person meets with your new dev regularly during their early days on the job. A big part of bono's job is being a person who can answer the question of how do I internet without passing too much judgment? One of the most difficult parts of being a new developer is that you haven't really developed the level of discernment to know which parts of your code base are specific to your company and like what you can actually just get out of Google. It's this mentor's job to help the junior dev cultivate that ability. The second person on the mentorship team is the edge. Still really important, not quite as public. You might not get all that face time with this person during the day-to-day. Your supervisor or maybe your mentor's mentor might fill this role. People who are really great at filling this role are available to the new developer as an alternate perspective and are happy to provide help in the event that you've driven your primary mentor just a little bit insane. And then the last person on your team is a Larry Mullen. No one knows who Larry Mullen is.  Being the Larry Mullen of a mentorship team is a thankless and incredibly important job. When you are Larry Mullen, you do not get mentioned in your junior developer speech at the Imaginary Engineering Academy Awards.  These roles don't have to be explicitly articulated.  Larry Mullen might have something in common with the junior dev, a project, a gender, a global fondness for rock climbing, but it's not a prerequisite. You are never too inexperienced to be Larry Mullen. Everyone in this room has the power to be Larry Mullen. So the people you need on your mentorship team is an explicit mentor you meet every day, an additional mentor that provides support to that mentor, and just a team of engineers that understands that developing talent is just as important as writing clean code. So just to recap really quick, planning, work with your new engineer to develop her onboarding plan. It is awesome to be ready to invest in helping someone launch a career in programming. Work with them to support that investment. Projects, look at assigning work to your new engineers as an opportunity. They're around to it. Give them projects with visible impact. Balance exciting supervised work with boring independent work. Lower the cost of asking questions and empower yourself to be everybody's Larry Mullen. Thanks all. You've been great. Great. Great talk. Questions? Hi there. You mentioned that transcripts were really helpful. Did you mean, it wasn't quite clear whether you meant just transcripts of conferences or whether internally in your team there were transcripts made of meetings? Yeah, I have a deaf colleague and so we have transcripts at all of our engineering meetings and product dev talks and some of our larger meetings and then when we're in small groups we tend to transcribe ourselves in Google Docs. So cool to watch that question being transcribed by Kimberly. More questions for Rebecca? Yeah, so this is actually advice for I guess HR people and whoever will be hiring the junior devs. Do you actually have any advice for the junior developers who've been hired and for example, have not been assigned a mentor? How to get them to or how to get the HR people to yeah. I feel like the junior devs I know who have been happiest in their positions and have like found a lot of mentorship available to them made contacts with their company through the engineering department it's hard because a lot of it is like very much about that personal connection I mean sometimes I do think that you have to seek that influence outside of your company if you're in a city like New York or Berlin where there are a lot of user groups and you can find that mentorship elsewhere also Slack can be great there's like a lot of communities kind of coming up there where like you might be able to get mentorship from people but you know are many many miles from you yeah that's a really difficult question Yeah, I was wondering if you could say something about how mentors can get feedback from junior developers or trainees or something because when you ask someone who is really inexperienced am I doing a good job at teaching you I don't think you get a very useful answer out of that and I'm usually wondering if I'm actually good at mentoring someone and I can't really tell Totally, because we're so grateful to be mentored so it's like anyone who has taken the time out of their day to invest in someone at the junior level like usually you're so excited about that that it's very difficult to be like well this could be better in this way and also when we're talking about people very early in their career they don't have a lot to compare that to this is something that we're kind of working on now at my company I'm mentoring a summer intern with a more senior developer and there's several of us and we've kind of had to talk about the different between ourselves the different ways in which we mentor and what our expectations are of each other and then you can present like that kind of template to your junior as things that might be realistic expectations for them that's kind of the best way that we've like having more conversations like these and like discussing different mentorship models I think is kind of the best way to deal with that well a lot of the stuff that we do as engineers like a lot of the paradigms that we use or technology that we use are ultimately solutions to problems that are very contextual so how to strike the right balance between I mean explaining the solution to a problem and on the other hand like letting people experience problems on their own and explaining the solution if you don't know the problem itself right it's actually very hard to me to strike this balance do you have any suggestions yeah so we're talking about striking a balance between being like perhaps a little bit too helpful because a lot of a lot of cultivating good engineering practice is coming up with the ability to answer those questions on your own I actually got a really good anecdote about this from my boyfriend last night who kind of helped teach me to code and many other people in that why would he sorry oh I walked around too much the slide on documentation and he said that when he's mentored junior engineers that he will and they're stuck on something that isn't well documented he will be like give me a minute then go and write the documentation and then tell them to look in the documentation and I thought that was pretty great thank you another round of applause for Rebecca


We are here today at Lackland Air Force Base in partnership with our USO to bring a first-time screening with Channing Tatum, the movie dog. We give this first-time screening to our service members and military families located here on Joint Base San Antonio. So a lot of people don't understand it, it's more than just the coffee shops and welcome centers inside the airport. The USO has a plethora of resources that they bring to bear from employment opportunities and helping build resumes to things like this, entertainment. We love this. We love this movie. It's really due to our hearts and we just hope you enjoy it. That's it. Thank you for watching. Here at Lackland Air Force Base Joint Base San Antonio is we have a facility for our military working dogs that brings up not only just the puppies, but we train them to a full-grown status, qualified military working dog. Not only do we train those pups, dogs here, but we also train their handlers, only location in the nation.