4 ms·

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 t

• 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.
  • mindcrime 14y ago
    Comparing this to extortion is quite a bit of hyperbole. You're talking about one journalist, publishing a list on a website... not a gang of armed thugs standing in your store going "this sure is a nice shop, would be a real cryin' shame if sumthin were to happen to it..." Is dmor asking for money, or trying to strong arm anyone into doing anything? No, dmor is just reporting based on the information she has available. That it might be incomplete or inaccurate is worthy of pointing out, but it's a HUGE stretch to invoke an analogy to extortion.
    • ganeumann 14y ago
      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman You are misdefining extortion.
      • mindcrime 14y ago
        Oh? Then please share your definition, as I'm working off the basis that it's something like this[1]: Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion
• seeingfurther 14y ago
  Yes, all of this, yes.