3 ms·
I do hope he's wrong, or that this a mistake of some sort. The rise of Angel investors has seen a lot of ideas and entrepreneurs get needed money when they migh
by jnoller 16y ago
I do hope he's wrong, or that this a mistake of some sort. The rise of Angel investors has seen a lot of ideas and entrepreneurs get needed money when they might not have under the traditional VC model.
Something like this, if true, will cause the government to step in, and probably regulate and change things for the worse for a great many people. It won't just hurt these few super angels. It will take everyone with it.
- MediaSquirrel 16y agoI believe the saying that applies is: "Power corrupts..."
- cool-RR 16y agoI wouldn't take anything he says seriously. [Edit: If it wasn't clear, I meant Arrington, not Jesse]
- lsternlicht 16y agoI think your statement was clear. However, I find it hard to believe Arrington would put some of his best sources at risk if his claims were completely unfounded.
- onan_barbarian 16y agoStrange how any post that could be construed as being negative about Arrington gets down-modded by about 5 points, regular as clockwork. That being said, I think he's on the money with this one. This can only be good for YC overall. The suspicion that YC alternatives are all colluding against your startup is likely to make YC seem more attractive still, to the class of startup that would be wavering between YC and a rival.
- ericd 16y agoSuper angels aren't really an alternative to YC... they normally step in at the stage a company is at where YC normally ends.
- stanleydrew 16y agoPosts that consist of nothing more than subjective statements tend to get a lot of downvotes, not just the ones about Arrington.
- ori_b 16y agoThe reason it's always exactly 4 points of downvote is because hn caps the visible downvotes at 4, not because there are 4 shills.
- j_baker 16y agoTo be fair, this is Michael Arrington. He's not above sensationalism to get a few extra clicks.
- jnoller 16y agoI'm not going to disagree with that. As I said, I hope this is a mistake.
- Alex3917 16y agoIn Arrington's defense his claims are laid out clearly without any weasel words. Either this is happening or it isn't. So while I'm pretty meh about TC as a whole, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
- chc 16y agoHe didn't name a single name. If he really believed this was so certain, he could have. Unless he's trying to make them do something, the only reason to keep names out of it is because he thinks this might be libel.
- swombat 16y agoHe doesn't need to expose himself to lawsuits by naming names. The names are pretty obvious to anyone in the field.
- chc 16y agoYes, but that's the thing — you can't get sued for "obvious names." Even if he's completely making this up, if one of the obvious suspects sues him, he can just say, "Oh, no, I didn't mean him." The comment I was replying to said, "his claims are laid out clearly without any weasel words. Either this is happening or it isn't." I disagree with that — Arrington is not laying it all out here as a black-and-white truth. He's consciously omitting facts in a way that happens to shield him from repercussions if this is false. As a traditional dead-tree newspaper guy, I'm very familiar with the ways reporters fudge their claims to avoid being responsible if it turns out to be crap. That's what this sounds like to me.
- origoterra 16y agoArrington is smart, a lawyer himself, and already know he is headed straight to the witness stand. Thanks for blowing this whistle Mike. That's the TC we like.
- seldo 16y agoI don't know if witnessing a table full of people go silent when he turns up proves anything, and the rest is all info that would put his source on the stand, not him.
- danielnicollet 16y agoIf you read the full post, take in account that he was present and saw who was there, and assume he has not chosen to reveal everything about the sources through TC at this time (that's highly understandable - protecting his sources and only disclosing what he feels is verifiable), there is definitely a lot here and absolutely enough for a climb to the witness stand!
- tomjen3 16y agoI am not so sure - he said that several of the persons there were very uncomfortable with the deal, so being there alone would not be enough. The rest is heresay, which is admissible in no non-kangaroo court that I know of.