4 ms·
Mike actually makes some interesting counter arguments against the super angel movmeny. I'm curious to hear what HN thinks about this statement: "And without t
by Cmccann7 16y ago
Mike actually makes some interesting counter arguments against the super angel movmeny. I'm curious to hear what HN thinks about this statement:
"And without those occasional but huge exits, the entire ecosystem can fail. Venture firms need big returns to raise new funds. Without venture money a lot of the innovation in Silicon Valley would end.
So in effect, the argument goes, the angel investors are like a quickly growing cancer. Without radically invasive surgery, Silicon Valley will eventually flatline."
- adamsmith 16y agoSome problems with this argument: * Value creation is value creation. Even if the optics of how liquidity is realized are changed, what matters is making something people want, not the exit strategy. * There will always be financing options for later stage startups. Super angels will not kill venture capital altogether, as is implied.
- _delirium 16y agoIt's a sort of strange argument, because it seems to be making a good-of-society kind of argument, but via free-market investing, in a weird hybrid. The argument is that one kind of free-market investor ought to bow out, because they're hurting the other kind, who, the argument goes, are ultimately required for innovation. But what's this asking for? Government regulation? Angels foregoing profitable deals in order to altruistically keep the VCs in business?