A week ago Mark Suster wrote an interesting article about the definition of a "seed round":
> If it looks like an A-round, smells like an A-round & tastes like an A-round … it’s an A-round. My personal definition? It is less about actual money and more about structure of your Cap Table. If you have raised $2-4 million from a bunch of high-net-worth individuals I simply don’t see it as an A-round. If you raised $2 million from two small seed funds I probably don’t either (although in the past I would have). But if you raised $3-5 million from well-known seed funds or from a VC and you’re asking for $8-10 million in your next round … that next round is a B-round no matter what we collectively decide to call it when we VCs fund you.
My personal definition of a seed round is a round where you don't give up any board seat or special power to investors. After a seed round you should basically work as usual (product, users, product, users, ... nothing else). By this definition, our round qualifies as seed. Managing a board takes time and energy and the more you can delay this, the better (from my experience).
That being said, this is a very subjective notion and everybody is free to have their own.
I think this piece you're putting here shows quite well how much the definition of a round doesn't matter to anyone but VCs. Important stuff is: awesome product!
> If it looks like an A-round, smells like an A-round & tastes like an A-round … it’s an A-round. My personal definition? It is less about actual money and more about structure of your Cap Table. If you have raised $2-4 million from a bunch of high-net-worth individuals I simply don’t see it as an A-round. If you raised $2 million from two small seed funds I probably don’t either (although in the past I would have). But if you raised $3-5 million from well-known seed funds or from a VC and you’re asking for $8-10 million in your next round … that next round is a B-round no matter what we collectively decide to call it when we VCs fund you.