Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026

Interactive Commerce Corp

Interactive Commerce Corp looks over-valued against its niche peers and is dormant on financing cadence.

DeprioritizeFinancing has gone silent well past the sector's normal cadence — treat as inactive until outside confirmation of a live operation.

Businessfiled

Interactive Commerce Corp operates in Other, based in LOS ANGELES.

Sector still resolves to a broad 'Other' bucket, so operating comparables below are weaker than for a tightly-classified peer.

No verified homepage on file yet — operating evidence is limited to the public record.

Capital & rounds (filed)filed

Interactive Commerce Corp has raised $708K in disclosed capital across 1 recorded round, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Pre-Seed (a round under $1.0M).

Largest single filing: $708K on 2010-12-28.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2010-12-28.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Interactive Commerce Corp at approximately $16M (range $472K–$185M). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Over-valued. Modeled value is 2.17× the median modeled value of Pre-Seed Other companies in 2010–2012 (1459 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Last raise 15.5 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Only one round on record and long silent — often defunct, acquired, or gone quiet.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 30% of Other peers (25008 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 48% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: Suter Joshua Scott, Bigger Picture Group LLC, UCC-LRS Investment, LLC, Garrow Trident, LLC, 1ST Interstate Capital Corp.

Peoplefiled

2 named people on file across officers, directors and signatories.

Risks & flagsmixed

Financing has been silent well beyond sector cadence — possibly defunct, acquired, or paused.

Modeled above niche peers — valuation risk on entry.

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

No clearly named CEO/founder/principal in the surfaced records — key-person evidence is thin.