3 ms·

If I was Dalton (PicPlz) I would have been fine with my investor exercising their pro-rata rights in another investment, even it had become competitive. It's no

by staunch 15y ago

If I was Dalton (PicPlz) I would have been fine with my investor exercising their pro-rata rights in another investment, even it had become competitive. It's not ideal, but I don't think it's unethical. I'd be much more concerned about them sharing information, so there would have be a discussion about that.

jcitme 15y ago
I agree with this statement. If someone invested in my service and something else who competed with mines, this doesn't represent an ethical problem, but just that the investor is interested in the field in general.
- fredoliveira 15y ago
  This is a statement I appreciate (and that I personally agree with) but that is, well, rational. When things get real, rationality is often forgotten. It would be easy to take the opposite position if you were to consider that an investment is usually (or supposedly) a product of the investor's passion for your particular business, not necessarily the field it belongs to. It can be seen as the investor saying "we're with you on this, and we'll fight your competition by your side". It's a matter of perspective, and in this case, it is easy to see things from both sides. All this being said, I love Dalton's honesty, and Ben's post. A ton of ink was used to cover this matter, but the fact is, everyone's happy here.
jasoncrawford 15y ago
See my answer to "yabbadabbadoo". It's just too hard to not share information, at least implicitly, when a VC takes a board seat on competing companies. So most VCs have a policy like Andreessen's.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
dbul 15y ago
Since maximizing return is in the interest of the LPs, as a VC wouldn't you at least have a conversation with PicPlz about investing in an additional round with a competitor? Especially: Dalton later pivoted out of PicPlz and is now building an exciting new service called App.Net. If the App.Net concept was on the alternative idea list (likely considering the generalist nature of the entrepreneur [music, photos, whatever app.net does]), maybe the pivot would have happened sooner.

by staunch 15y ago

jcitme 15y ago

I agree with this statement. If someone invested in my service and something else who competed with mines, this doesn't represent an ethical problem, but just that the investor is interested in the field in general.

fredoliveira 15y ago
This is a statement I appreciate (and that I personally agree with) but that is, well, rational. When things get real, rationality is often forgotten. It would be easy to take the opposite position if you were to consider that an investment is usually (or supposedly) a product of the investor's passion for your particular business, not necessarily the field it belongs to. It can be seen as the investor saying "we're with you on this, and we'll fight your competition by your side". It's a matter of perspective, and in this case, it is easy to see things from both sides. All this being said, I love Dalton's honesty, and Ben's post. A ton of ink was used to cover this matter, but the fact is, everyone's happy here.

jasoncrawford 15y ago

See my answer to "yabbadabbadoo". It's just too hard to not share information, at least implicitly, when a VC takes a board seat on competing companies. So most VCs have a policy like Andreessen's.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

dbul 15y ago

Since maximizing return is in the interest of the LPs, as a VC wouldn't you at least have a conversation with PicPlz about investing in an additional round with a competitor? Especially: Dalton later pivoted out of PicPlz and is now building an exciting new service called App.Net. If the App.Net concept was on the alternative idea list (likely considering the generalist nature of the entrepreneur [music, photos, whatever app.net does]), maybe the pivot would have happened sooner.