4 ms·

The list doesn't seem that accurate. Some of these "VCs" are actually angel groups that don't do Series A, other than follow ons (Webb Investment Network). Oth

The list doesn't seem that accurate. Some of these "VCs" are actually angel groups that don't do Series A, other than follow ons (Webb Investment Network). Others have started Angel funds (Ron Conway) and no longer invest personally.

arbuge 14y ago
Then there's outfits like Tiger Global, which doesn't do series A's... and I have no idea what Charles Schwab is doing on this list.
- dmor 14y ago
  All of this data is from Crunchbase, and the column D "Date of Most Recent Series A Investment" indicates they participated in the round though they might not have lead.
  - andrewljohnson 14y ago
    You hold up "all this data is from Crunchbase" like it's a shield, and basically say the same about your Alexa web numbers for YC start-ups - don't blame me, blame my methodology! Why not try and come up with a more robust method than pouring over CrunchBase and appending "Na ni na ni boo boo VCs, if this data is wrong, contact me,"
    - dmor 14y ago
      It's not a shield, it's a sign. I'm working with limited public data trying to create something new and I'm working on improving it but it takes time - making this post alone was a labor of love and I realize this kind of analysis still has a long way to go. One of the best ways to get data to make these lists better has been to publish what is available and get feedback on what is wrong, where to look, who to ask etc. When I make these posts suddenly people start returning my emails requesting data. It also occurs to me that we have no problem judging and speculating about startups based on nothing more than a TechCrunch post with extremely limited public data. It's funny that it is so much less socially acceptable to do this with investors. Maybe I can change that.
      - mindcrime 14y ago
        It also occurs to me that we have no problem judging and speculating about startups based on nothing more than a TechCrunch post with extremely limited public data. It's funny that it is so much less socially acceptable to do this with investors. Maybe I can change that. Love it! Keep up the good work, dmor!
      - ganeumann 14y ago
        Going public saying "don't work with these funds" and then telling them you'll take them off the s!!t list when they share their private data with you sounds an awful lot like what in other walks of life people would call extortion. I have a list of everyone who has paid their credit card bills in the last several months (the list only covers people who live in my apartment.) You are not on it. Is it okay if I put up a public website calling you a deadbeat? If you don't want to be on it, just send me a copy of your bank statements. My firm (Neu Venture Capital) is on the list, despite doing a Series A a few months ago, a Series B last month, and three seed deals in the last six months. O'Reilly Alphatech is on there, despite raising a $85 million Fund III six months ago. Quotidian is doing deals, Chris Sacca is doing deals, etc. Crunchbase data is incomplete. Saying people have done something based on it is relatively safe; saying people have not done something based on it is scurrilous. [edit: the second paragraph is a hyperbolic analogy. I don't have such a list and I wouldn't use it that way if I did. That was my point, that it would be wrong to make that sort of implication based on data you know is incomplete.]
        dmor 14y ago
        To be completely clear, I did not say in my post that founders should not work with these investors. I said it might be a waste of time to pitch them on a Series A, since it doesn't appear from publicly available data that they are doing those sorts of deals lately, and that founders should proceed accordingly. I understand your frustration, startups used to cringe at mentions in the press but have come to understand that the world is interested in how they work, what they do, who they are and whether or not they create value. Investors have had remarkably less written about them and if they are not publicly sharing the fact they are helping founders get Series A deals done I hardly see why I shouldn't point it out, and create an incentive for greater transparency. I will work to investigate more deeply and create a more useful data set.

arbuge 14y ago

Then there's outfits like Tiger Global, which doesn't do series A's... and I have no idea what Charles Schwab is doing on this list.

dmor 14y ago
All of this data is from Crunchbase, and the column D "Date of Most Recent Series A Investment" indicates they participated in the round though they might not have lead.
- andrewljohnson 14y ago
  You hold up "all this data is from Crunchbase" like it's a shield, and basically say the same about your Alexa web numbers for YC start-ups - don't blame me, blame my methodology! Why not try and come up with a more robust method than pouring over CrunchBase and appending "Na ni na ni boo boo VCs, if this data is wrong, contact me,"
  - dmor 14y ago
    It's not a shield, it's a sign. I'm working with limited public data trying to create something new and I'm working on improving it but it takes time - making this post alone was a labor of love and I realize this kind of analysis still has a long way to go. One of the best ways to get data to make these lists better has been to publish what is available and get feedback on what is wrong, where to look, who to ask etc. When I make these posts suddenly people start returning my emails requesting data. It also occurs to me that we have no problem judging and speculating about startups based on nothing more than a TechCrunch post with extremely limited public data. It's funny that it is so much less socially acceptable to do this with investors. Maybe I can change that.
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      It also occurs to me that we have no problem judging and speculating about startups based on nothing more than a TechCrunch post with extremely limited public data. It's funny that it is so much less socially acceptable to do this with investors. Maybe I can change that. Love it! Keep up the good work, dmor!
    - ganeumann 14y ago
      Going public saying "don't work with these funds" and then telling them you'll take them off the s!!t list when they share their private data with you sounds an awful lot like what in other walks of life people would call extortion. I have a list of everyone who has paid their credit card bills in the last several months (the list only covers people who live in my apartment.) You are not on it. Is it okay if I put up a public website calling you a deadbeat? If you don't want to be on it, just send me a copy of your bank statements. My firm (Neu Venture Capital) is on the list, despite doing a Series A a few months ago, a Series B last month, and three seed deals in the last six months. O'Reilly Alphatech is on there, despite raising a $85 million Fund III six months ago. Quotidian is doing deals, Chris Sacca is doing deals, etc. Crunchbase data is incomplete. Saying people have done something based on it is relatively safe; saying people have not done something based on it is scurrilous. [edit: the second paragraph is a hyperbolic analogy. I don't have such a list and I wouldn't use it that way if I did. That was my point, that it would be wrong to make that sort of implication based on data you know is incomplete.]
      - dmor 14y ago
        To be completely clear, I did not say in my post that founders should not work with these investors. I said it might be a waste of time to pitch them on a Series A, since it doesn't appear from publicly available data that they are doing those sorts of deals lately, and that founders should proceed accordingly. I understand your frustration, startups used to cringe at mentions in the press but have come to understand that the world is interested in how they work, what they do, who they are and whether or not they create value. Investors have had remarkably less written about them and if they are not publicly sharing the fact they are helping founders get Series A deals done I hardly see why I shouldn't point it out, and create an incentive for greater transparency. I will work to investigate more deeply and create a more useful data set.