9 ms·

AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

139 points by davidedicillo 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
thedjpetersen 16y ago
I don't think I would like it if I knew a e-mail intended to be personal ended up on techcrunch. I don't think the leaking of these personal e-mails is very polite.
- bradly 16y ago
  I don't think anyone writing these e-mails expects them not to end up on TechCrunch.
- ghshephard 16y ago
  Rule number 1: write every email As though it will appear on the front page of the New York Times. If you aren't comfortable with that, then make a phone call or talk in person.
- swombat 16y ago
  An email sent to 10 public figures in the process of entering a media shit-storm? Personal? You have a strange definition of the word "personal".
Tycho 16y ago
tl;dr: Ron, Where Is The Love?
sown 16y ago
I wonder if people will start using public-key encryption or something to encrypt mails so that only certain recipients can read them.
- spicyj 16y ago
  Presumably this wouldn't help because the recipients can always copy out the plaintext of the message to send to TC or whomever. (Unless you're suggesting that TC is intercepting the emails as they travel over the wire, which is quite dubious.)
- aaronsw 16y ago
  Do you really think these emails are being intercepted by third parties? Surely the recipients are leaking them and no encryption scheme can prevent that.
  - pvg 16y ago
    the recipients Or the senders, encryption being equally useless in that case, as well.
  - nkurz 16y ago
    True, encryption probably wouldn't help, but you could probably come up with a scheme to watermark the messages. You could make it look like the same thing was sent a large CC list, but be able to determine the source of the leak by a changed word or two. Makes you wonder if some of these smart people are already doing it.
    - inerte 16y ago
      This technique has been used for a while, and it's widely known. It's "easy" to defeat, you need to ask someone else for a copy, and match its contents/changes with the copy from the original leaker. I don't mean to say it's a bad idea, and it's standard practice in enterprise environments, but it's no silver bullet either. Plus, to align with parent messages, it won't prevent leaking, it just helps to identify the person.
    - bl4k 16y ago
      This email makes the sender look good. The last leaked email made the sender look good. Work out who is leaking them.
  - 16y ago
gkoberger 16y ago
My summary (I did my best to represent the gist of what Sacca was saying): Chris Sacca considers Ron Conway a mentor and greatly respects him. However, he was "hurt" by Conways email. Sacca was at the first meeting, not the second. He wishes Conway had been there, since they would have liked his input on the things they talked about: standard docs for financing, pro-rata rights ("early investors continuing to stay involved"), futility of VCs blocking company sales, giving more liquidity to founders. He said they are all pro entrepreneurs, they coach entrepreneurs along the way, and they 'bleed' just as much as founders do. Sacca's first deal was paid with a credit card check, which was stupid but he wanted to help. Because of Twitter and search, they can't "fuck" entrepreneurs, since it would be forever attached to their names. Sacca is upset at Conways "rush judgement" of his (Conways) friends (Conway allegedly privately referred to them as 'dirtbags' to Sacca). He wants Conway to ask entrepreneurs how working with the Angels in question is, and hopes Conway realizes how hard they work.
ramanujan 16y ago
Mark my words: all of Silicon Valley will regret it if the federal government gets involved in angel financing, "collusion" or no colllusion. It is not easy to build a Silicon Valley, but choking off deal flow with red tape could well destroy it. When the government enters an area on the basis of negative press coverage, it does not have an informed opinion or a light touch. Think about it: years later, we are still taking off our shoes and surrendering our liquids at the airport. Policies written in haste after a media event are almost never revisited or changed, no matter how much economic damage they do. I don't want to paint a mental picture by giving too many details, but you can imagine what any government assault on angels would do to the financing environment. This is exactly the kind of premise that a broke California (or federal) government can use to impose new taxes, just like police officers are ordered to increase ticketing when the city needs revenue. Bottom line: the cure would be far, far, FAR worse than the disease.
- sachinag 16y ago
  The FBI is investigating AngelGate: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2010/09/fbi_reportedly_looking_into_angelgate.html http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2010/09/fbi_rep...
  - ajju 16y ago
    Is FBI the agency tasked with investigating allegations of anti-competitive behavior? Interesting. This is the last thing the valley needed though.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      I don't think they have primary responsibility for antitrust law, but the FBI often assists the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division (http://www.justice.gov/atr/ http://www.justice.gov/atr/) with the fieldwork part of investigations (the FBI is an agency of the DoJ).
    - stretchwithme 16y ago
      I love how government, the most anti-competitive entity there is, will be investigating anti-competitive behavior. Physician, heal thyself.
pointillistic 16y ago
Someone, a person who was at the meeting informed Arrington about the negative purpose of the conversations. So either that person was lying to Arrington and Arrignton to the readers or Sacca is telling half truths. Even as he wasn't at the second meeting anyway. It's rather obvious that for Sacca his relationship with Conway is more valuable than anything he does for the startups or his freaking charities. The purpose of his long, very long essay is the damage control of the relationship with Conway, nothing else.
- jeromec 16y ago
  Someone, a person who was at the meeting informed Arrington about the negative purpose of the conversations. So either that person was lying to Arrington and Arrignton to the readers or Sacca is telling half truths. Look at the first reporting on AngelGate. Michael Arrington says he got the content of the meetings from multiple sources: >This group of investors, which together account for nearly 100% of early stage startup deals in Silicon Valley, have been meeting regularly to compare notes. Early on it was mostly to complain about a variety of things. But the conversation has evolved to the point where these super angels are actually colluding (and I don’t use that word lightly) to solve a number of problems, say multiple sources who are part of the group and were at the dinner. According to these souces, the ongoing agenda includes: Complaints about Y Combinator’s growing power, and how to counteract competitiveness in Y Combinator deals etc...
  - lzw 16y ago
    Of course, he "claims" that, but it sure reads like a rant from a guy who got snubbed when he wanted to be buddy-buddy with potential sources of information. I think this is really all about Mike ego not being stroked enough. And no, I don't think it is outlandish to posit that Mike made the whole set of allegations up.
- jon_dahl 16y ago
  It's rather obvious that for Sacca his relationship with Conway is more valuable than anything he does for the startups or his freaking charities. The purpose of his long, very long essay is the damage control of the relationship with Conway, nothing else. Wow, that's cynical. "Freaking charities"? If you'd ever met Chris Sacca, you'd know that this isn't true. He has just about the strongest reputation of any investor in SV, and doesn't need to lie awake at night worrying about what Ron Conway thinks of him.
mattmaroon 16y ago
Wow. I've dealt with Chris a little (and know people whose companies he has invested in, whose companies have gone both ways) and was always impressed but now am even more so. I obviously knew nothing about his financial situation but can admire anyone who'd put that much on the line when they smelled good gambles.
barnaby 16y ago
Sounds too good to be true.
- barnaby 16y ago
  Would the downvoters explain this one? Do you think anyone sincerely cares about your best interest the way this guy claims in his email? Because this sounds incredibly charitable.
lzw 16y ago
I don't know Chris Sacca and I've never met Mike Arrington, but reading this email and the original article Mike wrote, Chris has a lot more credibility than Mike to my eyes. OF course, Mike wasn't actually there so his allegations are pretty much by definition unsubstantiated. I think it is a shame that Mike gets the attention he does, and that his website gets the traffic it does. This is not the first time he has impeached his credibility.
ghshephard 16y ago
After careful reading of Sacca, Conway, and Arrington, I've come to the conclusion that they might all be correct in their representation. We know there were at least two meetings of the "Super Angels" - It's possible (likely) that the first meeting that Sacca attend was an aboveboard engagement in which all of the positive conversations that took place were as Sacca described it. Indeed, I read Sacca's email as a shout-out to Conway saying "Hey - the meeting I attended, was above board - don't paint me with the second meeting brush" It sounds like in the second meeting, the conversation departed from "How do we help entrepreneurs" and started sliding into "How do we increase value for angels". Maybe not full out (actionable) collusion in which any agreements were made (and the concept of agreement is pretty important in collusion) - but skirting dangerously close. David Lee was at that second meeting (and, for all we know, was one of Arrington's sources - He had Three), likely gave conway the briefing, and conway, being savvy, realized he needed to immediately separate himself, particularly as all this email floating around is discoverable. Nobody should, for a second, think that Ron Conway is writing email with the belief that it won't be seen in the public light. Talking as a group about things like holding down valuations, dealing with YC leverage, and the impact of convertible notes on the Angel's cut of deals is all pretty dangerous territory. Sacca wasn't at the second meeting, so his email has to be taken in that context. All in all I think Arrington has done a great service with some excellent blogging, not only to the startup/entrepreneur scene, but also, ironically, to the Super Angels themselves. By surfacing these conversations early on, I'm of the belief that he may have actually given them a wakeup call before they started doing (illegal?) things like agreeing as a group not to accept convertible notes. This is hard hitting reporting that harkens back to a day of serious reporting - ironically done not by a "mainstream" news outlet like the WSJ, or NYT - but by a "mere" blogger. kudos.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- davemc500hats 16y ago
  both meetings were aboveboard... period. the discussions at the second dinner meeting were similar in nature to the first, altho Chris wasn't at the 2nd dinner. we also discussed ways to reduce legal costs, increase exit opportunities by using services like Second Market, how other services like Angel List were innovating & bringing access to more investors / entrepreneurs, how convertible notes were becoming more popular (which i use most of the time, and both PG & Mark Suster have written about lately), and a number of related topics -- again, many of which i mentioned on my blog post in response to Arrington's initial post. altho some folks were bitching about startup valuations being higher lately, THERE WERE NO conversations about "price-fixing" or other BS mike reported... which is why i got so pissed when mike made such accusations, even though he wasn't there for any conversation & only reported based on anonymous sources. while some people might suggest Mike's reporting as "hard-hitting", i'd characterize it as more inflammatory and not very well sourced. if he'd bothered to talk in more detail with any of us who were there before rushing to print, he might have gotten a lot more information about the discussions, instead of just printing one anonymous source's perspective... and perhaps less criticism from those who think he's just creating controversy to drive attention prior to the Disrupt conference. mike has a right to report what he thinks is news, but that doesn't mean it's ok to go to print with only anonymous sources perspectives on that matter, particularly when others (like me) are willing to publicly state otherwise. in any case, i guess we'll hear more about this in the morning on the panel. i'm tired and i'm going to bed. believe what you will.
irahul 16y ago
I don't get it. These mails from Ron Conway and Chris Sacca sounds like founders are babies in their diapers who won't even find the way to the toilet without their angel's "coaching" them. They are taking the "angel" thing too seriously. And why does these mails have to sound like charity or some great cause? These angles aren't donating to charity - it would be good if it doesn't sound like that. This "how much we do for founders" is overdone. From where I see, the introductions and exposure that comes along with the Angels can help you get, well more introduction and exposure and may be, funding which you already have. How does a company's success depend on these charitable deeds? It won't result in more paying customers or buyout. I don't like the tone of the mails where it makes it sound like founder are a bunch of ignorant chumps and they owe it to these Angles for the hard work and guidance. First, doesn't matter who the investor is, if founders and team aren't competent, the company would succumb. Second, the work angels are doing aren't for the founders - it's towards ROI.
- ghshephard 16y ago
  "Second, the work angels are doing aren't for the founders - it's towards ROI." Some Angels are focused on that. Others have a different take, from Ron Conway's Email: "I want to clarify once and for all my total disagreement with your values and motives for being investors. I have stated consistently for year that I invest because I love helping entrepenuers and watching them learn and succeed." And, as someone who's been through several startups, and seen those run by seasoned 'serial entrepreneurs' (who've learned the hard way, and could be angels in their own right (and later have done so), and some run by first timers (who haven't even heard of the phrase "term sheet", let alone know how to negotiate one) - I'd suggest that there is a certain class of founder, an entrepreneur out to build a great product for the first time, that while not a 'baby in a diaper', is a 'babe in the woods' - and having someone who is working for _them_, rather than 'ROI' can quite often make all the difference between success and failure. VCs (at least the three or four I've had exposure to at my low level) are focused on returns. Great angels are focused on helping entrepreneurs succeed. A VC will pursue a strategy that results in complete and utter failure for some of their investments, if it means overall greater returns for their aggregate portfolio of companies. That's just not in the DNA of the few angels I know. I'd be cautious in trying to understand what the motivator is for these angels - for some of them, their mission is even more important than charity - it's a higher calling in which they are trying to help entrepreneurs succeed, rather than simply chase the almighty dollar. The money is important insofar as it is an indicator of their success, and as a tool to continue their mission - but not necessarily the objective.
points 16y ago
BORING. How much longer will this go on? I don't come to HN to read infinite responses to the boring news that investors meet and chat. Who the hell cares?
- dannyr 16y ago
  Apparently, you do since you care enough to reply.
  - points 16y ago
    I care enough about hacking to try and keep HN a useful place. Unfortunately it seems most people here are just interested in gossip and giving Techcrunch pageviews.
evilthinker 16y ago
Why are people still discussing this? Start-ups don't grow on trees. If there is something to be investigated it will, if there are any problems with angel financing they'll be known, meanwhile all this speculation is a waste of precious time.

139 points by davidedicillo 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

I don't think I would like it if I knew a e-mail intended to be personal ended up on techcrunch. I don't think the leaking of these personal e-mails is very polite.

bradly 16y ago
I don't think anyone writing these e-mails expects them not to end up on TechCrunch.
ghshephard 16y ago
Rule number 1: write every email As though it will appear on the front page of the New York Times. If you aren't comfortable with that, then make a phone call or talk in person.
swombat 16y ago
An email sent to 10 public figures in the process of entering a media shit-storm? Personal? You have a strange definition of the word "personal".

Tycho 16y ago

tl;dr: Ron, Where Is The Love?

sown 16y ago

I wonder if people will start using public-key encryption or something to encrypt mails so that only certain recipients can read them.

spicyj 16y ago
Presumably this wouldn't help because the recipients can always copy out the plaintext of the message to send to TC or whomever. (Unless you're suggesting that TC is intercepting the emails as they travel over the wire, which is quite dubious.)
aaronsw 16y ago
Do you really think these emails are being intercepted by third parties? Surely the recipients are leaking them and no encryption scheme can prevent that.
- pvg 16y ago
  the recipients Or the senders, encryption being equally useless in that case, as well.
- nkurz 16y ago
  True, encryption probably wouldn't help, but you could probably come up with a scheme to watermark the messages. You could make it look like the same thing was sent a large CC list, but be able to determine the source of the leak by a changed word or two. Makes you wonder if some of these smart people are already doing it.
  - inerte 16y ago
    This technique has been used for a while, and it's widely known. It's "easy" to defeat, you need to ask someone else for a copy, and match its contents/changes with the copy from the original leaker. I don't mean to say it's a bad idea, and it's standard practice in enterprise environments, but it's no silver bullet either. Plus, to align with parent messages, it won't prevent leaking, it just helps to identify the person.
  - bl4k 16y ago
    This email makes the sender look good. The last leaked email made the sender look good. Work out who is leaking them.
- 16y ago

gkoberger 16y ago

My summary (I did my best to represent the gist of what Sacca was saying): Chris Sacca considers Ron Conway a mentor and greatly respects him. However, he was "hurt" by Conways email. Sacca was at the first meeting, not the second. He wishes Conway had been there, since they would have liked his input on the things they talked about: standard docs for financing, pro-rata rights ("early investors continuing to stay involved"), futility of VCs blocking company sales, giving more liquidity to founders. He said they are all pro entrepreneurs, they coach entrepreneurs along the way, and they 'bleed' just as much as founders do. Sacca's first deal was paid with a credit card check, which was stupid but he wanted to help. Because of Twitter and search, they can't "fuck" entrepreneurs, since it would be forever attached to their names. Sacca is upset at Conways "rush judgement" of his (Conways) friends (Conway allegedly privately referred to them as 'dirtbags' to Sacca). He wants Conway to ask entrepreneurs how working with the Angels in question is, and hopes Conway realizes how hard they work.

ramanujan 16y ago

Mark my words: all of Silicon Valley will regret it if the federal government gets involved in angel financing, "collusion" or no colllusion. It is not easy to build a Silicon Valley, but choking off deal flow with red tape could well destroy it. When the government enters an area on the basis of negative press coverage, it does not have an informed opinion or a light touch. Think about it: years later, we are still taking off our shoes and surrendering our liquids at the airport. Policies written in haste after a media event are almost never revisited or changed, no matter how much economic damage they do. I don't want to paint a mental picture by giving too many details, but you can imagine what any government assault on angels would do to the financing environment. This is exactly the kind of premise that a broke California (or federal) government can use to impose new taxes, just like police officers are ordered to increase ticketing when the city needs revenue. Bottom line: the cure would be far, far, FAR worse than the disease.

sachinag 16y ago
The FBI is investigating AngelGate: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2010/09/fbi_reportedly_looking_into_angelgate.html http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2010/09/fbi_rep...
- ajju 16y ago
  Is FBI the agency tasked with investigating allegations of anti-competitive behavior? Interesting. This is the last thing the valley needed though.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    I don't think they have primary responsibility for antitrust law, but the FBI often assists the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division (http://www.justice.gov/atr/ http://www.justice.gov/atr/) with the fieldwork part of investigations (the FBI is an agency of the DoJ).
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    I love how government, the most anti-competitive entity there is, will be investigating anti-competitive behavior. Physician, heal thyself.

pointillistic 16y ago

Someone, a person who was at the meeting informed Arrington about the negative purpose of the conversations. So either that person was lying to Arrington and Arrignton to the readers or Sacca is telling half truths. Even as he wasn't at the second meeting anyway. It's rather obvious that for Sacca his relationship with Conway is more valuable than anything he does for the startups or his freaking charities. The purpose of his long, very long essay is the damage control of the relationship with Conway, nothing else.

jeromec 16y ago
Someone, a person who was at the meeting informed Arrington about the negative purpose of the conversations. So either that person was lying to Arrington and Arrignton to the readers or Sacca is telling half truths. Look at the first reporting on AngelGate. Michael Arrington says he got the content of the meetings from multiple sources: >This group of investors, which together account for nearly 100% of early stage startup deals in Silicon Valley, have been meeting regularly to compare notes. Early on it was mostly to complain about a variety of things. But the conversation has evolved to the point where these super angels are actually colluding (and I don’t use that word lightly) to solve a number of problems, say multiple sources who are part of the group and were at the dinner. According to these souces, the ongoing agenda includes: Complaints about Y Combinator’s growing power, and how to counteract competitiveness in Y Combinator deals etc...
- lzw 16y ago
  Of course, he "claims" that, but it sure reads like a rant from a guy who got snubbed when he wanted to be buddy-buddy with potential sources of information. I think this is really all about Mike ego not being stroked enough. And no, I don't think it is outlandish to posit that Mike made the whole set of allegations up.
jon_dahl 16y ago
It's rather obvious that for Sacca his relationship with Conway is more valuable than anything he does for the startups or his freaking charities. The purpose of his long, very long essay is the damage control of the relationship with Conway, nothing else. Wow, that's cynical. "Freaking charities"? If you'd ever met Chris Sacca, you'd know that this isn't true. He has just about the strongest reputation of any investor in SV, and doesn't need to lie awake at night worrying about what Ron Conway thinks of him.

mattmaroon 16y ago

Wow. I've dealt with Chris a little (and know people whose companies he has invested in, whose companies have gone both ways) and was always impressed but now am even more so. I obviously knew nothing about his financial situation but can admire anyone who'd put that much on the line when they smelled good gambles.

barnaby 16y ago

Sounds too good to be true.

barnaby 16y ago
Would the downvoters explain this one? Do you think anyone sincerely cares about your best interest the way this guy claims in his email? Because this sounds incredibly charitable.

lzw 16y ago

I don't know Chris Sacca and I've never met Mike Arrington, but reading this email and the original article Mike wrote, Chris has a lot more credibility than Mike to my eyes. OF course, Mike wasn't actually there so his allegations are pretty much by definition unsubstantiated. I think it is a shame that Mike gets the attention he does, and that his website gets the traffic it does. This is not the first time he has impeached his credibility.

ghshephard 16y ago

After careful reading of Sacca, Conway, and Arrington, I've come to the conclusion that they might all be correct in their representation. We know there were at least two meetings of the "Super Angels" - It's possible (likely) that the first meeting that Sacca attend was an aboveboard engagement in which all of the positive conversations that took place were as Sacca described it. Indeed, I read Sacca's email as a shout-out to Conway saying "Hey - the meeting I attended, was above board - don't paint me with the second meeting brush" It sounds like in the second meeting, the conversation departed from "How do we help entrepreneurs" and started sliding into "How do we increase value for angels". Maybe not full out (actionable) collusion in which any agreements were made (and the concept of agreement is pretty important in collusion) - but skirting dangerously close. David Lee was at that second meeting (and, for all we know, was one of Arrington's sources - He had Three), likely gave conway the briefing, and conway, being savvy, realized he needed to immediately separate himself, particularly as all this email floating around is discoverable. Nobody should, for a second, think that Ron Conway is writing email with the belief that it won't be seen in the public light. Talking as a group about things like holding down valuations, dealing with YC leverage, and the impact of convertible notes on the Angel's cut of deals is all pretty dangerous territory. Sacca wasn't at the second meeting, so his email has to be taken in that context. All in all I think Arrington has done a great service with some excellent blogging, not only to the startup/entrepreneur scene, but also, ironically, to the Super Angels themselves. By surfacing these conversations early on, I'm of the belief that he may have actually given them a wakeup call before they started doing (illegal?) things like agreeing as a group not to accept convertible notes. This is hard hitting reporting that harkens back to a day of serious reporting - ironically done not by a "mainstream" news outlet like the WSJ, or NYT - but by a "mere" blogger. kudos.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
davemc500hats 16y ago
both meetings were aboveboard... period. the discussions at the second dinner meeting were similar in nature to the first, altho Chris wasn't at the 2nd dinner. we also discussed ways to reduce legal costs, increase exit opportunities by using services like Second Market, how other services like Angel List were innovating & bringing access to more investors / entrepreneurs, how convertible notes were becoming more popular (which i use most of the time, and both PG & Mark Suster have written about lately), and a number of related topics -- again, many of which i mentioned on my blog post in response to Arrington's initial post. altho some folks were bitching about startup valuations being higher lately, THERE WERE NO conversations about "price-fixing" or other BS mike reported... which is why i got so pissed when mike made such accusations, even though he wasn't there for any conversation & only reported based on anonymous sources. while some people might suggest Mike's reporting as "hard-hitting", i'd characterize it as more inflammatory and not very well sourced. if he'd bothered to talk in more detail with any of us who were there before rushing to print, he might have gotten a lot more information about the discussions, instead of just printing one anonymous source's perspective... and perhaps less criticism from those who think he's just creating controversy to drive attention prior to the Disrupt conference. mike has a right to report what he thinks is news, but that doesn't mean it's ok to go to print with only anonymous sources perspectives on that matter, particularly when others (like me) are willing to publicly state otherwise. in any case, i guess we'll hear more about this in the morning on the panel. i'm tired and i'm going to bed. believe what you will.

irahul 16y ago

I don't get it. These mails from Ron Conway and Chris Sacca sounds like founders are babies in their diapers who won't even find the way to the toilet without their angel's "coaching" them. They are taking the "angel" thing too seriously. And why does these mails have to sound like charity or some great cause? These angles aren't donating to charity - it would be good if it doesn't sound like that. This "how much we do for founders" is overdone. From where I see, the introductions and exposure that comes along with the Angels can help you get, well more introduction and exposure and may be, funding which you already have. How does a company's success depend on these charitable deeds? It won't result in more paying customers or buyout. I don't like the tone of the mails where it makes it sound like founder are a bunch of ignorant chumps and they owe it to these Angles for the hard work and guidance. First, doesn't matter who the investor is, if founders and team aren't competent, the company would succumb. Second, the work angels are doing aren't for the founders - it's towards ROI.

ghshephard 16y ago
"Second, the work angels are doing aren't for the founders - it's towards ROI." Some Angels are focused on that. Others have a different take, from Ron Conway's Email: "I want to clarify once and for all my total disagreement with your values and motives for being investors. I have stated consistently for year that I invest because I love helping entrepenuers and watching them learn and succeed." And, as someone who's been through several startups, and seen those run by seasoned 'serial entrepreneurs' (who've learned the hard way, and could be angels in their own right (and later have done so), and some run by first timers (who haven't even heard of the phrase "term sheet", let alone know how to negotiate one) - I'd suggest that there is a certain class of founder, an entrepreneur out to build a great product for the first time, that while not a 'baby in a diaper', is a 'babe in the woods' - and having someone who is working for _them_, rather than 'ROI' can quite often make all the difference between success and failure. VCs (at least the three or four I've had exposure to at my low level) are focused on returns. Great angels are focused on helping entrepreneurs succeed. A VC will pursue a strategy that results in complete and utter failure for some of their investments, if it means overall greater returns for their aggregate portfolio of companies. That's just not in the DNA of the few angels I know. I'd be cautious in trying to understand what the motivator is for these angels - for some of them, their mission is even more important than charity - it's a higher calling in which they are trying to help entrepreneurs succeed, rather than simply chase the almighty dollar. The money is important insofar as it is an indicator of their success, and as a tool to continue their mission - but not necessarily the objective.

points 16y ago

BORING. How much longer will this go on? I don't come to HN to read infinite responses to the boring news that investors meet and chat. Who the hell cares?

dannyr 16y ago
Apparently, you do since you care enough to reply.
- points 16y ago
  I care enough about hacking to try and keep HN a useful place. Unfortunately it seems most people here are just interested in gossip and giving Techcrunch pageviews.

evilthinker 16y ago

Why are people still discussing this? Start-ups don't grow on trees. If there is something to be investigated it will, if there are any problems with angel financing they'll be known, meanwhile all this speculation is a waste of precious time.