6 ms·

Um, it's none of YOUR business how these firms run their deals. Not that I find the practice equitable, nor a lawsuit meritorious on the available information,

Um, it's none of YOUR business how these firms run their deals. Not that I find the practice equitable, nor a lawsuit meritorious on the available information, but if that's THEIR business model and the founders are willing to fork over the cash, that's THEIR CHOICE. If you really want to FIX this, offer up a viable structured alternative to aggressively pursue their business. It's easy to throw spit-balls from the back of the classroom. I'd expect much more from somebody who's been down that road--on both sides of the table. Instead this whole affair comes across, in gestalt, as a series of public ad hominem attacks on other parties and a plea for personal attention in the minimus. If your ambition is to be a "shock podcaster" and garner a Dave Winer-esque reputation, you're, sadly, headed down the right track. You complained about being publicly "berated" at Gnomedex '07. Kettle. Pot. Black.

BRadmin 17y ago
Posting people's personal experiences in dealing with these organizations, with the willingness to publicize contrary opinions (ie positive experiences), and letting individuals decide for themselves is a tribute to the community. The inner-workings of these groups are generally clandestine - exposing information not readily-available to the average entrepreneur about them can't be a bad thing.
- jasonmcalacanis 17y ago
  Word.
- bonsaitree 17y ago
  That would be fine IF there was any semblance of an open/neutral forum and Calacanis hadn't already used blanketing statements. What sane set of founders would voluntarily violate agreements to "come out" publicly FOR their experiences in this context? It's a rigged trial. As I've already stated, from what's been published, I disagree with these practices, but we're only hearing "leaked documents" from ONE SOURCE. There's ZERO discourse here--just fear mongering and name-calling. It all comes across as extremely pandering and childish. Hopefully, that will change. It would be one thing if Calacanis had some semblance of independence, but as a partner in Sequioa, he is, quite literally, a fiduciary in a competing firm. How would you like to have your business's private contractual affairs paraded in front of a bully pulpit?
  - skmurphy 17y ago
    Calacanis does not appear to be a partner in Sequoia. A search of the http://www.sequoiacap.com/ http://www.sequoiacap.com/ site for "calacanis" delivers no hits. The page http://www.sequoiacap.com/us/jason-calacanis http://www.sequoiacap.com/us/jason-calacanis does not exist (which I believe would if he were on their team in a formal capacity). In December 2006 he took an "entrepreneur in residence" role, which is normally temporary (e.g. 6-12 months to find a company to start or invest in), which may be misleading you. No one likes to have their private business contracts leaked, but it's always a good idea to operate in a way that you can withstand public scrutiny. Many other qualified investors--both Angels and VC's--have also been critical of the same business practices that Calacanis is criticizing. For example, the Angel Capital Association, Brad Feld, Fred Wilson, Joe Platnick.
    - bonsaitree 17y ago
      Perhaps my information is simply out of date. Given that Mr. Calacanis is active on this thread, he clearly would be the best source to clarify things. FWIW, (see below) I also disagree with these practices, but have serious reservations on the methods and motivations employed to expose them.
    - jasonmcalacanis 17y ago
      Uhhhh.... I'm not a partner at Sequoia.
catch23 17y ago
I'm all for calacanis for ratting these guys out. They're no different for those spammy cash4gold programs out there. They exist for the sole purpose of fleecing money from people who don't know better.
- ynniv 17y ago
  There's a vast difference between being spammy and being criminal. Calacanis would be wise to stick to the facts and advise people not to do business with people that do shady business, instead of throwing mud and demonizing specific firms. The tack he is currently on could land him in a costly defamation suit, netting some sleazy VC his Tesla.
jasonmcalacanis 17y ago
Actually, if you look at my first email I suggested that we would do an "open angel forum" if they didn't drop the fees. So, I'm fairly down with the concept of creating something competitive! I mean, that's what I did when I got upset about the DEMO conference charing startups $20k for six minutes on stage!
- netsp 17y ago
  Out of curiosity, do you have a business model in mind for this? IE, if not for the Crusade (or Jihad), do you have a reason for running an alternative?
  - jasonmcalacanis 17y ago
    Very simple: 1. do it in a free or cheap location 2. ask a law firm to buy breakfast 3. use open source software/posterous to host the website 4. don't be a greedy f@#$%k and take $6k from startups desperate to raise capital. best jcal :-p
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Creating something competitive would take a lot of the wind out of your current argument, these jerks could use that to show in court that your only reason to do what you did (namecalling etc) was to launch your venture over the back of theirs.
- chris123 17y ago
  Bring it on, Jason. An open forum that brings together (A) people/companies in need of angel funding; and (B) angels. Oh, and so you can tell the "serious" angels from all the others, charge a fee to the ANGELS. I actually think this is what Seedcamp (London) does.
pyre 17y ago
How is he necessarily 'tearing them down' so to speak? He's providing the community with information about these groups. He's obviously interjecting his opinion into it all, but I don't see him being particularly vague about where his opinions end and where the facts begin. Rephrasing this all another way, how can it be a bad thing for him to provide for information (even publishing testimonials) about these groups so that someone considering using such a group can make an informed decision? From the sounds of it, these groups seem to be rather slim on the details (other than price) when it comes to communicating with potential entrepreneurs. If these businesses are operating on the premise that they are going to somehow 'hide' what happens inside so that no one can know the inner workings until they pay the entrance fee, then they already have a failing business model. Did you even read some of the personal stories? The one about paying $18k just to pitch to a room lacking all of the 'big names' that are touted out when it's time to convince you to pay the fee really irks me. If that is even true, how can someone even justify this kind of behavior?
- bonsaitree 17y ago
  As I've said before, and will repeat one final time, I DO NOT agree with these firm's practices, but I will defend their right to apply whatever bidding/pitch process they'd like, under the law, within their respective organizations. Aside from the usual litany of trade-secret/defamation issues (largely paper tigers here) and clearly vested bias by the publisher, the release itself isn't the issue. What IS wrong is the instant garnering of credibility of this single-sourced material without any fact-checking of these accounts nor dialog with/about the respective parties. Whistle-blowing is fine IF released through 3rd parties who apply independent due diligence. To use an analogy, it's as if the coach of a college football team calls a press conference to expose the corrupt high school recruiting practices of a rival university. If true, and the coach genuinely places the best interests of those high school students foremost, he insures its release through ESPN, the college athletics association, or any 3rd party perceived to be reasonably neutral. If, on the other hand, he personally brings forth these allegations in his own forum, it only serves to degrade their credibility, do a disservice to those whom ostensibly he is attempting to serve, and cast a great deal of umbrage on his true motivations. One final addendum, if that $18k story is true, then it sure looks like an open and shut case for a breach of contract suit, but more likely, an easy opportunity to reach a pre-trial settlement for the majority of the proceeds. If the founders blindly paid these fees w/o any sort of written agreements of performance on the part of the Angel firm, nor applied any inverse due-diligence to their potential investors, then I seriously question if they have necessary modicum of business acumen to run a company.
pkaler 17y ago
If you really want to FIX this, offer up a viable structured alternative to aggressively pursue their business. I believe it's called TechCrunch50.

BRadmin 17y ago

Posting people's personal experiences in dealing with these organizations, with the willingness to publicize contrary opinions (ie positive experiences), and letting individuals decide for themselves is a tribute to the community. The inner-workings of these groups are generally clandestine - exposing information not readily-available to the average entrepreneur about them can't be a bad thing.

jasonmcalacanis 17y ago
Word.
bonsaitree 17y ago
That would be fine IF there was any semblance of an open/neutral forum and Calacanis hadn't already used blanketing statements. What sane set of founders would voluntarily violate agreements to "come out" publicly FOR their experiences in this context? It's a rigged trial. As I've already stated, from what's been published, I disagree with these practices, but we're only hearing "leaked documents" from ONE SOURCE. There's ZERO discourse here--just fear mongering and name-calling. It all comes across as extremely pandering and childish. Hopefully, that will change. It would be one thing if Calacanis had some semblance of independence, but as a partner in Sequioa, he is, quite literally, a fiduciary in a competing firm. How would you like to have your business's private contractual affairs paraded in front of a bully pulpit?
- skmurphy 17y ago
  Calacanis does not appear to be a partner in Sequoia. A search of the http://www.sequoiacap.com/ http://www.sequoiacap.com/ site for "calacanis" delivers no hits. The page http://www.sequoiacap.com/us/jason-calacanis http://www.sequoiacap.com/us/jason-calacanis does not exist (which I believe would if he were on their team in a formal capacity). In December 2006 he took an "entrepreneur in residence" role, which is normally temporary (e.g. 6-12 months to find a company to start or invest in), which may be misleading you. No one likes to have their private business contracts leaked, but it's always a good idea to operate in a way that you can withstand public scrutiny. Many other qualified investors--both Angels and VC's--have also been critical of the same business practices that Calacanis is criticizing. For example, the Angel Capital Association, Brad Feld, Fred Wilson, Joe Platnick.
  - bonsaitree 17y ago
    Perhaps my information is simply out of date. Given that Mr. Calacanis is active on this thread, he clearly would be the best source to clarify things. FWIW, (see below) I also disagree with these practices, but have serious reservations on the methods and motivations employed to expose them.
  - jasonmcalacanis 17y ago
    Uhhhh.... I'm not a partner at Sequoia.

catch23 17y ago

I'm all for calacanis for ratting these guys out. They're no different for those spammy cash4gold programs out there. They exist for the sole purpose of fleecing money from people who don't know better.

ynniv 17y ago
There's a vast difference between being spammy and being criminal. Calacanis would be wise to stick to the facts and advise people not to do business with people that do shady business, instead of throwing mud and demonizing specific firms. The tack he is currently on could land him in a costly defamation suit, netting some sleazy VC his Tesla.

jasonmcalacanis 17y ago

Actually, if you look at my first email I suggested that we would do an "open angel forum" if they didn't drop the fees. So, I'm fairly down with the concept of creating something competitive! I mean, that's what I did when I got upset about the DEMO conference charing startups $20k for six minutes on stage!

netsp 17y ago
Out of curiosity, do you have a business model in mind for this? IE, if not for the Crusade (or Jihad), do you have a reason for running an alternative?
- jasonmcalacanis 17y ago
  Very simple: 1. do it in a free or cheap location 2. ask a law firm to buy breakfast 3. use open source software/posterous to host the website 4. don't be a greedy f@#$%k and take $6k from startups desperate to raise capital. best jcal :-p
jacquesm 17y ago
Creating something competitive would take a lot of the wind out of your current argument, these jerks could use that to show in court that your only reason to do what you did (namecalling etc) was to launch your venture over the back of theirs.
chris123 17y ago
Bring it on, Jason. An open forum that brings together (A) people/companies in need of angel funding; and (B) angels. Oh, and so you can tell the "serious" angels from all the others, charge a fee to the ANGELS. I actually think this is what Seedcamp (London) does.

pyre 17y ago

How is he necessarily 'tearing them down' so to speak? He's providing the community with information about these groups. He's obviously interjecting his opinion into it all, but I don't see him being particularly vague about where his opinions end and where the facts begin. Rephrasing this all another way, how can it be a bad thing for him to provide for information (even publishing testimonials) about these groups so that someone considering using such a group can make an informed decision? From the sounds of it, these groups seem to be rather slim on the details (other than price) when it comes to communicating with potential entrepreneurs. If these businesses are operating on the premise that they are going to somehow 'hide' what happens inside so that no one can know the inner workings until they pay the entrance fee, then they already have a failing business model. Did you even read some of the personal stories? The one about paying $18k just to pitch to a room lacking all of the 'big names' that are touted out when it's time to convince you to pay the fee really irks me. If that is even true, how can someone even justify this kind of behavior?

bonsaitree 17y ago
As I've said before, and will repeat one final time, I DO NOT agree with these firm's practices, but I will defend their right to apply whatever bidding/pitch process they'd like, under the law, within their respective organizations. Aside from the usual litany of trade-secret/defamation issues (largely paper tigers here) and clearly vested bias by the publisher, the release itself isn't the issue. What IS wrong is the instant garnering of credibility of this single-sourced material without any fact-checking of these accounts nor dialog with/about the respective parties. Whistle-blowing is fine IF released through 3rd parties who apply independent due diligence. To use an analogy, it's as if the coach of a college football team calls a press conference to expose the corrupt high school recruiting practices of a rival university. If true, and the coach genuinely places the best interests of those high school students foremost, he insures its release through ESPN, the college athletics association, or any 3rd party perceived to be reasonably neutral. If, on the other hand, he personally brings forth these allegations in his own forum, it only serves to degrade their credibility, do a disservice to those whom ostensibly he is attempting to serve, and cast a great deal of umbrage on his true motivations. One final addendum, if that $18k story is true, then it sure looks like an open and shut case for a breach of contract suit, but more likely, an easy opportunity to reach a pre-trial settlement for the majority of the proceeds. If the founders blindly paid these fees w/o any sort of written agreements of performance on the part of the Angel firm, nor applied any inverse due-diligence to their potential investors, then I seriously question if they have necessary modicum of business acumen to run a company.

pkaler 17y ago

If you really want to FIX this, offer up a viable structured alternative to aggressively pursue their business. I believe it's called TechCrunch50.