5 ms·
Some people are agreeing with you, but I actually don't agree. I looked into this and it's actually quite difficult to definitively identify who is being refere
by tschwimmer 6y ago
Some people are agreeing with you, but I actually don't agree. I looked into this and it's actually quite difficult to definitively identify who is being referenced. There are a few seemingly conflicting bits of info in the letter, like the person is a novice VC investor ("I recognize ---- is your first experience in venture, or as a professional investor") with the fact that they are also the lead investor in one of their rounds ("I still can't believe that is true for the lead of our Series ---"). As far as I can tell, these seem to be mutually exclusive: the leads of all the rounds seem to be veteran (or at the least very seasoned)VC investors.
Theoretically this would be easy to figure out if you had a yearly listing of board members which I imagine should be public, but that doesn't appear available publicly. The only listing of the board I can find is this news article [0] from 2015, but again, none of the people listed there can be definitively identified as the one being referenced.
As further evidence of how murky this is, several people in the comments below have named different people as the person being referenced. One commenter has edited their comment to change the person being accused.
If the author of this email wanted to point a finger at a specific person, they did a bad job.
[0]https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2015/01/60650-lending-club-executive-joins-circleup-board-directors/ https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2015/01/60650-lending-club-...
- ascar 6y agoI agree. I also tried to figure this out and couldn't narrow it down to a single person. However, while the lead investor companies are established, the "partners" of the lead investors listed on crunchbase do seem to fit the fresh investor note. Especially since Series B and C were 5-6 years ago.
- tschwimmer 6y agoMmm, yeah. I wasn't considering the series C because the timelines didn't really add up, but I took a second look and it actually fits the points in the letter.
- RightTail 6y agohttps://twitter.com/cshapiro/status/1317212694529802242?s=20 https://twitter.com/cshapiro/status/1317212694529802242?s=20
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- stickfigure 6y agoAn extra bit of complication seems to be that CircleUp itself seems to be some sort of VC-like operation, so at times I wasn't quite sure if some of the funds they were raising were for CircleUp or their clients. Time to rewatch Inception.
- avree 6y agoHopefully this reply doesn't get me in trouble on HN... But I strongly disagree with you. Collaborative Fund led the Series C round. Jay Kim was a fairly fresh venture investor at the time; the model and operation of NXC/Nexon's investment arm was quite different to the traditional VC. Based off the timings, it's highly likely this is the VC who the e-mail refers to.
- anon_usr_134 6y agohttps://twitter.com/ricburton/status/1316945844315238401?s=20 https://twitter.com/ricburton/status/1316945844315238401?s=2... sounds like Craig Shapiro is the likely culprit here
- avree 6y agoVery doubtful. I think you misunderstood the tweet; the person who posted that tweet is asking the founder and leader of Collaborative Fund to be responsible for the actions of his partners. Craig isn't the one who was sitting on the board.
- anon_usr_134 6y agonope. He confirmed its him but denies the accusations https://twitter.com/cshapiro/status/1317212694529802242?s=20 https://twitter.com/cshapiro/status/1317212694529802242?s=20.
- argonaut 6y agoThree names have been named. Two of the names are from the same throwaway account (unless something was changed with edits).