From the article: "I wrote about two startups today ... neither had involvement from the so called “super angels”" ... "except Hipmunk, which took

From the article: "I wrote about two startups today ... neither had involvement from the so called “super angels”" ... "except Hipmunk, which took an investment from SV Angel." It's easy to make assumptions when you only have 2 data points. How about inDinero, who raised $1.2M, some of which was from Dave McClure? And GazeHawk, who also raised from McClure (full disclosure: I'm with GazeHawk)? How can 1 or 2 data points be considered enough to write a blog post about a "trend"? I don't know how people can take this stuff seriously. Also, most valuations that are mentioned with seed-stage YC investments aren't pre-money. The YC convertible note doc has a valuation cap that is pre-money on a Series A, so technically post-money on the note itself. That means that Arrington's example actually nets the company 25%. Additionally, Arrington's math is wrong. In order to make "any money" given: $1M investments at $4M caps (even if it gets you 20% instead of the 25% that it should - see above) Assuming all exits that happen are at $30M with no Series A Each one nets you $6M, so 1/6 need to succeed to break even. "7/10 or more" assumes $15M exits, which was the low bounds of his range. This whole article screams "agenda", or at the very least ill-informed reporting.