10 ms·

Brief Thoughts on Angel List

56 points by ericflo 16y ago

StavrosK 16y ago
Oh wow, I'd describe that writing style as "stream of semi-consciousness". I couldn't read all of it.
- rararational 16y ago
  I would describe his entire writing style as annoying and abrasive which makes it so I can read barely any of it. But I suppose some people like it or the ideas as his writings seem to do well here.
  - davemc500hats 16y ago
    that is my writing style. i was also in a hurry because i needed to get my kid to basketball practice at 10am, and i started at 7am. usually it takes me about 5-6 hours to include the "full insanity" version with fonts, pictures, etc. (anyway, i'm obviously an acquired taste... i won't be offended if you think i'm offensive.)
    - rararational 16y ago
      I've never met you so I can't possibly think you are offensive but I do find your writing style a bit harsh to read, some people obviously like it though.
    - TheSOB88 16y ago
      Why insanity? I guess there's the entertainment value...
acgourley 16y ago
I don't like how he points at the negative 10 year VC return numbers as implied proof his strategy is superior. On the other hand I don't know why I'm arguing against someones alter ego.
- MediaSquirrel 16y ago
  I think he's acknowledging that there is still risk in his strategy, but that's it's not as risky as critics like to say.
  - acgourley 16y ago
    That's overly charitable of you. Why would he bring up the last 10 years of VC returns unless his argument was, "look how bad traditional investor schools of thought are, anything else that kinda seems to make sense must be as good or better". But that doesn't follow. The past 10 years returns of VC's investment strategy says nothing about his strategies relative performance.
    - davemc500hats 16y ago
      i didn't say "anything else must be as good or better". what i meant was that blind trust in traditional VC strategy doesn't make any sense, since on average they suck. my strategy is still new (<12 months old), so there's no historical performance to compare, outside my investing at Founders Fund (which looks pretty good so far) and my own angel investing (which also looks pretty good). sorry i can't share #'s here on those, but as a personal investor i was in early on Mint, SlideShare, Simply Hired, & Mashery. as a professional investor at Founders Fund i was in early on Twilio, CrowdFlower, CreditKarma, Bitly, and several others which are doing pretty well. still, it's too early to say whether i'm any good or not. my point was simply that arguing status quo doesn't make sense when status quo is sucking pretty hard.
      - acgourley 16y ago
        Look, I like your investment strategy and want to see how it plays out. That said, your post does imply that the weak returns of the VCs last decade lend your approach merit when you point out their weak returns and then say: "to be more specific: if we look at the #'s, on average it's more likely that high-volume, spray & pray investing -- which i will going forward refer to as "a quantitative investment strategy" -- is likely to be successful than a "focused, low-volume" investing strategy." (Of course I assume you measure success by expected value, not the chance of being in the black after a small number of investments)
adsahay 16y ago
Just in time for my compilation (bit.ly bundle) of interesting reads in tech controversies: http://bit.ly/openletters http://bit.ly/openletters
pedalpete 16y ago
Dave makes it pretty clear that though VC's years ago praised the theories of the Wisdom of Crowds, they felt it applied to other industries, and not theirs. Seems most 'experts' feel that way.
hexis 16y ago
This blog seems like a parody of western civilization.
damoncali 16y ago
Dave strikes me as rude, obnoxious, and difficult to read. But more importantly, he strikes me as correct. The vast majority of VC's do a terrible job at investing. He's bold enough to try a new way - the index fund of the startup world. As they say, those who say it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those who are doing it. Who knows if it will work, but I'm eager to see the results. Edit: when I say Dave, I mean his writing style - I've never met the guy.
- tansey 16y ago
  I think I may be the only person on HN (besides Dave himself) who actually enjoys his writing style. Then again, I grew up on the East coast playing poker and basketball everyday, so smack talk is second nature to me. Most people in the Bay Area seem to be in a competition to see who can be the most modest, which has never been my style.
  - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
    I like it too (east coast as well). I just see it as straightforward, though I've also been accused of having an offensive or off-putting tone when I thought I was being straightforward as well.
    - loganfrederick 16y ago
      I don't see it as straightforward. I agree with a lot of what he says, but trash talk of pretty much any kind tends to distract of the issue at hand. Like in sports or gaming, I always prefer the person who plays silently and speaks with purpose than someone who tends to trash talk while playing. But neither form of etiquette effects who is the better player.
  - aneth 16y ago
    Agreed. I am also an east coaster and I find Dave's style to be a brilliant balance of humor and content. He occassionally rubs me the wrong way, but I'm a big boy. I can take it. I have a strong belief that any time you are offended, you should look within, not attack the offender.
podman 16y ago
I'm not really sure how Angel List works. I listed my startup a couple of weeks ago and it's had just 3 views. We don't have any "Social Proof" since we have been bootstrapping to this point. It feels as though Angel List has no utility unless you already have taken some money or a have a well known advisor. I also have not listed Price & Terms, which I have a feeling is also hurting the profile, as I'm not yet sure how much I should be raising and would like to discuss that with a potential investor first. So, if I have no "Social Proof", how likely are investors to find my company's profile on Angel List? Edit: I guess there is also the possibility that my company will not be the next Facebook nor does it even aspire to be and because of that, I guess it might not be interesting to investors.
- davemc500hats 16y ago
  best way to start on angel list is: 1) get at least one notable angel to introduce it / submit it 2) ideally have them introduce you to a few others (privately) 3) once you have some visibility / traction with a few folks, then set your listing public and open it up to the rest (if you want) this should probably be a separate thread here or on Quora to discuss best techniques for marketing a deal on Angel List. i'll try and write a blog post on this or a Quora question in the future. it's worth diving into more.
  - podman 16y ago
    That does make sense, and if that is the way it works, that's the way it works. The name AngelList, at least from an entrepreneur's stand point, might be misleading then. It seems to me that AngelList is more of a list of potential start-ups for angels than it is a list of potential angels for start-ups. While it can be used either way, to me it seems that the benefit is more for the angel than the start-up looking for funding. Maybe it should be called StartupList?
    - jayair 16y ago
      There is a certain way to use it, just like any tool. And the folks at AngelList helped us out with it. If used correctly it helps angels see higher deal flow and founders raise capital more efficiently.
dirtyaura 16y ago
Dave is spot on when he says that "value-added" investing comes more and more from domain experts. We have lately had discussion with a few investors. The quality of feedback AND connections from those that have been hands-on entrepreneurs, especially in our field (gaming) is in a totally different level compared to others.
MortenK 16y ago
I wonder when this Silicon valley school yard soap opera is finally over.
jorkos 16y ago
Dave nails the often unspoken truth: traditional VC's have been terrible on average. Suspect the savvy LPs will pour more and more into 500hat-esque vehicles...
ashbrahma 16y ago
Reading him is like reading James Joyce Finnegans Wake. For those who haven't read the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnegans_Wake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnegans_Wake
clark-kent 16y ago
I appreciate the entertainment, investing would have been so boring. "Angel List is like Dangerous Sex with Super Models for Virgin Nerds. yeah that's it -- imagine if you're Urkel and all of a sudden you get to find out who the newest Sports Illustrated hotties are, who they're screwing, and then SOMEHOW you discover an opportunity to SCREW THEM YOURSELF TOO! (omg, where do i sign?!?) ok, so you get the picture. this is probably why Bryce left the party."
- clark-kent 16y ago
  The above quote is direct from the blog post. Not my words.

56 points by ericflo 16y ago

StavrosK 16y ago

Oh wow, I'd describe that writing style as "stream of semi-consciousness". I couldn't read all of it.

rararational 16y ago
I would describe his entire writing style as annoying and abrasive which makes it so I can read barely any of it. But I suppose some people like it or the ideas as his writings seem to do well here.
- davemc500hats 16y ago
  that is my writing style. i was also in a hurry because i needed to get my kid to basketball practice at 10am, and i started at 7am. usually it takes me about 5-6 hours to include the "full insanity" version with fonts, pictures, etc. (anyway, i'm obviously an acquired taste... i won't be offended if you think i'm offensive.)
  - rararational 16y ago
    I've never met you so I can't possibly think you are offensive but I do find your writing style a bit harsh to read, some people obviously like it though.
  - TheSOB88 16y ago
    Why insanity? I guess there's the entertainment value...

acgourley 16y ago

I don't like how he points at the negative 10 year VC return numbers as implied proof his strategy is superior. On the other hand I don't know why I'm arguing against someones alter ego.

MediaSquirrel 16y ago
I think he's acknowledging that there is still risk in his strategy, but that's it's not as risky as critics like to say.
- acgourley 16y ago
  That's overly charitable of you. Why would he bring up the last 10 years of VC returns unless his argument was, "look how bad traditional investor schools of thought are, anything else that kinda seems to make sense must be as good or better". But that doesn't follow. The past 10 years returns of VC's investment strategy says nothing about his strategies relative performance.
  - davemc500hats 16y ago
    i didn't say "anything else must be as good or better". what i meant was that blind trust in traditional VC strategy doesn't make any sense, since on average they suck. my strategy is still new (<12 months old), so there's no historical performance to compare, outside my investing at Founders Fund (which looks pretty good so far) and my own angel investing (which also looks pretty good). sorry i can't share #'s here on those, but as a personal investor i was in early on Mint, SlideShare, Simply Hired, & Mashery. as a professional investor at Founders Fund i was in early on Twilio, CrowdFlower, CreditKarma, Bitly, and several others which are doing pretty well. still, it's too early to say whether i'm any good or not. my point was simply that arguing status quo doesn't make sense when status quo is sucking pretty hard.
    - acgourley 16y ago
      Look, I like your investment strategy and want to see how it plays out. That said, your post does imply that the weak returns of the VCs last decade lend your approach merit when you point out their weak returns and then say: "to be more specific: if we look at the #'s, on average it's more likely that high-volume, spray & pray investing -- which i will going forward refer to as "a quantitative investment strategy" -- is likely to be successful than a "focused, low-volume" investing strategy." (Of course I assume you measure success by expected value, not the chance of being in the black after a small number of investments)

adsahay 16y ago

Just in time for my compilation (bit.ly bundle) of interesting reads in tech controversies: http://bit.ly/openletters http://bit.ly/openletters

pedalpete 16y ago

Dave makes it pretty clear that though VC's years ago praised the theories of the Wisdom of Crowds, they felt it applied to other industries, and not theirs. Seems most 'experts' feel that way.

hexis 16y ago

This blog seems like a parody of western civilization.

damoncali 16y ago

Dave strikes me as rude, obnoxious, and difficult to read. But more importantly, he strikes me as correct. The vast majority of VC's do a terrible job at investing. He's bold enough to try a new way - the index fund of the startup world. As they say, those who say it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those who are doing it. Who knows if it will work, but I'm eager to see the results. Edit: when I say Dave, I mean his writing style - I've never met the guy.

tansey 16y ago
I think I may be the only person on HN (besides Dave himself) who actually enjoys his writing style. Then again, I grew up on the East coast playing poker and basketball everyday, so smack talk is second nature to me. Most people in the Bay Area seem to be in a competition to see who can be the most modest, which has never been my style.
- epi0Bauqu 16y ago
  I like it too (east coast as well). I just see it as straightforward, though I've also been accused of having an offensive or off-putting tone when I thought I was being straightforward as well.
  - loganfrederick 16y ago
    I don't see it as straightforward. I agree with a lot of what he says, but trash talk of pretty much any kind tends to distract of the issue at hand. Like in sports or gaming, I always prefer the person who plays silently and speaks with purpose than someone who tends to trash talk while playing. But neither form of etiquette effects who is the better player.
- aneth 16y ago
  Agreed. I am also an east coaster and I find Dave's style to be a brilliant balance of humor and content. He occassionally rubs me the wrong way, but I'm a big boy. I can take it. I have a strong belief that any time you are offended, you should look within, not attack the offender.

podman 16y ago

I'm not really sure how Angel List works. I listed my startup a couple of weeks ago and it's had just 3 views. We don't have any "Social Proof" since we have been bootstrapping to this point. It feels as though Angel List has no utility unless you already have taken some money or a have a well known advisor. I also have not listed Price & Terms, which I have a feeling is also hurting the profile, as I'm not yet sure how much I should be raising and would like to discuss that with a potential investor first. So, if I have no "Social Proof", how likely are investors to find my company's profile on Angel List? Edit: I guess there is also the possibility that my company will not be the next Facebook nor does it even aspire to be and because of that, I guess it might not be interesting to investors.

davemc500hats 16y ago
best way to start on angel list is: 1) get at least one notable angel to introduce it / submit it 2) ideally have them introduce you to a few others (privately) 3) once you have some visibility / traction with a few folks, then set your listing public and open it up to the rest (if you want) this should probably be a separate thread here or on Quora to discuss best techniques for marketing a deal on Angel List. i'll try and write a blog post on this or a Quora question in the future. it's worth diving into more.
- podman 16y ago
  That does make sense, and if that is the way it works, that's the way it works. The name AngelList, at least from an entrepreneur's stand point, might be misleading then. It seems to me that AngelList is more of a list of potential start-ups for angels than it is a list of potential angels for start-ups. While it can be used either way, to me it seems that the benefit is more for the angel than the start-up looking for funding. Maybe it should be called StartupList?
  - jayair 16y ago
    There is a certain way to use it, just like any tool. And the folks at AngelList helped us out with it. If used correctly it helps angels see higher deal flow and founders raise capital more efficiently.

dirtyaura 16y ago

Dave is spot on when he says that "value-added" investing comes more and more from domain experts. We have lately had discussion with a few investors. The quality of feedback AND connections from those that have been hands-on entrepreneurs, especially in our field (gaming) is in a totally different level compared to others.

MortenK 16y ago

I wonder when this Silicon valley school yard soap opera is finally over.

jorkos 16y ago

Dave nails the often unspoken truth: traditional VC's have been terrible on average. Suspect the savvy LPs will pour more and more into 500hat-esque vehicles...

ashbrahma 16y ago

Reading him is like reading James Joyce Finnegans Wake. For those who haven't read the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnegans_Wake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnegans_Wake

clark-kent 16y ago

I appreciate the entertainment, investing would have been so boring. "Angel List is like Dangerous Sex with Super Models for Virgin Nerds. yeah that's it -- imagine if you're Urkel and all of a sudden you get to find out who the newest Sports Illustrated hotties are, who they're screwing, and then SOMEHOW you discover an opportunity to SCREW THEM YOURSELF TOO! (omg, where do i sign?!?) ok, so you get the picture. this is probably why Bryce left the party."

clark-kent 16y ago
The above quote is direct from the blog post. Not my words.