6 ms·

Arrington is a judge and CrunchFund is a seed investor of the winning company. Stay classy, TechCrunch.

by callmeed 13y ago

shalmanese 13y ago
Arrington recused himself from voting with every startup he invested in (as did other investors on the stage).
- jaredsohn 13y ago
  Interestingly, I think that for one of the finalists (forget which one), all of the judges but one were investors.
seeingfurther 13y ago
Doesn't CrunchFund do tons of small investments and I'm guessing they invest in every company at Disrupt? It would almost be silly for them not to... I would think.
- callmeed 13y ago
  That's fine, then TC shouldn't put any CrunchFund people on the judging panel.
- ryanmerket 13y ago
  They do not invest in every company at Disrupt. Source: I presented on stage in NY 2010.
asenna 13y ago
Forget who invested and who voted, Layer is seriously addressing a huge problem. I looked at their presentation and realized how bad something like this is needed. I was looking for something like this recently and now I can't wait to get an invite. I feel they deserved winning. I do not have a vested interest in this company, just a fan.
mathattack 13y ago
This is fine, no? Who better to judge than investors? As long as it's not for firms he has a stake in, there's no conflict of interest. This is especially true when competitors want to attract investors.
- callmeed 13y ago
  I'm hoping you either didn't quite grasp it or you're joking. Arrington is CrunchFund's founder. He was on the judging panel AND an investor in the company which won. This is a conflict of interest on the level of NBA referee who gambles on basketball games. Even if Arrington didn't vote on Layer directly, it's still ridiculous. He could still easily influence the outcome. Some suggested in the TC comments that he grilled COTA enough to raise doubts in other voters' minds. Any investor wants exposure for their portfolio companies: either to grow the user base or attract more investment. I guess I'm not shocked that TC did it this way–just shocked that everyone else sees no issue with it.
  - mathattack 13y ago
    I misunderstood the magnitude. So let's say it's a rigged contest. Do you think people will choose not to apply as a result? Or just accept that it's more for PR than for funding?

Arrington is a judge and CrunchFund is a seed investor of the winning company. Stay classy, TechCrunch.

shalmanese 13y ago

Arrington recused himself from voting with every startup he invested in (as did other investors on the stage).

jaredsohn 13y ago
Interestingly, I think that for one of the finalists (forget which one), all of the judges but one were investors.

seeingfurther 13y ago

Doesn't CrunchFund do tons of small investments and I'm guessing they invest in every company at Disrupt? It would almost be silly for them not to... I would think.

callmeed 13y ago
That's fine, then TC shouldn't put any CrunchFund people on the judging panel.
ryanmerket 13y ago
They do not invest in every company at Disrupt. Source: I presented on stage in NY 2010.

asenna 13y ago

Forget who invested and who voted, Layer is seriously addressing a huge problem. I looked at their presentation and realized how bad something like this is needed. I was looking for something like this recently and now I can't wait to get an invite. I feel they deserved winning. I do not have a vested interest in this company, just a fan.

mathattack 13y ago

This is fine, no? Who better to judge than investors? As long as it's not for firms he has a stake in, there's no conflict of interest. This is especially true when competitors want to attract investors.

callmeed 13y ago
I'm hoping you either didn't quite grasp it or you're joking. Arrington is CrunchFund's founder. He was on the judging panel AND an investor in the company which won. This is a conflict of interest on the level of NBA referee who gambles on basketball games. Even if Arrington didn't vote on Layer directly, it's still ridiculous. He could still easily influence the outcome. Some suggested in the TC comments that he grilled COTA enough to raise doubts in other voters' minds. Any investor wants exposure for their portfolio companies: either to grow the user base or attract more investment. I guess I'm not shocked that TC did it this way–just shocked that everyone else sees no issue with it.
- mathattack 13y ago
  I misunderstood the magnitude. So let's say it's a rigged contest. Do you think people will choose not to apply as a result? Or just accept that it's more for PR than for funding?