Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 76 posts

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#11

Post by ramanujan »

Mark my words: all of Silicon Valley will regret it if the federal government gets involved in angel financing, "collusion" or no colllusion. It is not easy to build a Silicon Valley, but choking off deal flow with red tape could well destroy it.

When the government enters an area on the basis of negative press coverage, it does not have an informed opinion or a light touch. Think about it: years later, we are still taking off our shoes and surrendering our liquids at the airport. Policies written in haste after a media event are almost never revisited or changed, no matter how much economic damage they do.

I don't want to paint a mental picture by giving too many details, but you can imagine what any government assault on angels would do to the financing environment. This is exactly the kind of premise that a broke California (or federal) government can use to impose new taxes, just like police officers are ordered to increase ticketing when the city needs revenue.

Bottom line: the cure would be far, far, FAR worse than the disease.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#12

Post by pointillistic »

Someone, a person who was at the meeting informed Arrington about the negative purpose of the conversations. So either that person was lying to Arrington and Arrignton to the readers or Sacca is telling half truths. Even as he wasn't at the second meeting anyway.

It's rather obvious that for Sacca his relationship with Conway is more valuable than anything he does for the startups or his freaking charities. The purpose of his long, very long essay is the damage control of the relationship with Conway, nothing else.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#13

Post by sachinag »

ramanujan wrote: post #11

Mark my words: all of Silicon Valley will regret it if the federal government gets involved in angel financing, "collusion" or no colllusion. It is not easy to build a Silicon Valley, but choking off deal flow with red tape could well destroy it. When the government enters an area on the basis of negative press coverage, it does not have an informed opinion or a light touch. Think about it: years later, we are still…

The FBI is investigating AngelGate: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2010/09/fbi_rep...

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#14

Post by nkurz »

aaronsw wrote: post #7
sown wrote: post #5

I wonder if people will start using public-key encryption or something to encrypt mails so that only certain recipients can read them.

Do you really think these emails are being intercepted by third parties? Surely the recipients are leaking them and no encryption scheme can prevent that.

True, encryption probably wouldn't help, but you could probably come up with a scheme to watermark the messages. You could make it look like the same thing was sent a large CC list, but be able to determine the source of the leak by a changed word or two. Makes you wonder if some of these smart people are already doing it.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#15

Post by inerte »

nkurz wrote: post #14
aaronsw wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think these emails are being intercepted by third parties? Surely the recipients are leaking them and no encryption scheme can prevent that.

True, encryption probably wouldn't help, but you could probably come up with a scheme to watermark the messages. You could make it look like the same thing was sent a large CC list, but be able to determine the source of the leak by a changed word or two. Makes you wonder if some of these smart people are already doing it.

This technique has been used for a while, and it's widely known. It's "easy" to defeat, you need to ask someone else for a copy, and match its contents/changes with the copy from the original leaker.

I don't mean to say it's a bad idea, and it's standard practice in enterprise environments, but it's no silver bullet either.

Plus, to align with parent messages, it won't prevent leaking, it just helps to identify the person.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#16

Post by adrianwaj »

ramanujan wrote: post #11

Mark my words: all of Silicon Valley will regret it if the federal government gets involved in angel financing, "collusion" or no colllusion. It is not easy to build a Silicon Valley, but choking off deal flow with red tape could well destroy it. When the government enters an area on the basis of negative press coverage, it does not have an informed opinion or a light touch. Think about it: years later, we are still…

For me, minimum capital requirements to be an accredited investor is already far worse than the disease.

I'd prefer to see certification programs that people raising money must apply-for, and have that be the basis of whether an investment is valid for the market, rather than placing a capital requirement on potential investors as the way to determine if an investor is smart enough to reject scams, and thus save the government from complaints and minimize lawsuits than what would happen if joe public and his granny could invest their savings.

Perhaps there could be a certification program too for people wanting to invest.

This I think would free up capital and opportunity, ie real micro finance.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#17

Post by ajju »

sachinag wrote: post #13
ramanujan wrote: post #11

Mark my words: all of Silicon Valley will regret it if the federal government gets involved in angel financing, "collusion" or no colllusion. It is not easy to build a Silicon Valley, but choking off deal flow with red tape could well destroy it. When the government enters an area on the basis of negative press coverage, it does not have an informed opinion or a light touch. Think about it: years later, we are still…

The FBI is investigating AngelGate: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2010/09/fbi_rep...

Is FBI the agency tasked with investigating allegations of anti-competitive behavior? Interesting.

This is the last thing the valley needed though.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#18

Post by jeromec »

pointillistic wrote: post #12

Someone, a person who was at the meeting informed Arrington about the negative purpose of the conversations. So either that person was lying to Arrington and Arrignton to the readers or Sacca is telling half truths. Even as he wasn't at the second meeting anyway. It's rather obvious that for Sacca his relationship with Conway is more valuable than anything he does for the startups or his freaking charities. The purpo…

Someone, a person who was at the meeting informed Arrington about the negative purpose of the conversations. So either that person was lying to Arrington and Arrignton to the readers or Sacca is telling half truths.

Look at the first reporting on AngelGate. Michael Arrington says he got the content of the meetings from multiple sources:

>This group of investors, which together account for nearly 100% of early stage startup deals in Silicon Valley, have been meeting regularly to compare notes. Early on it was mostly to complain about a variety of things. But the conversation has evolved to the point where these super angels are actually colluding (and I don’t use that word lightly) to solve a number of problems, say multiple sources who are part of the group and were at the dinner. According to these souces, the ongoing agenda includes:

Complaints about Y Combinator’s growing power, and how to counteract competitiveness in Y Combinator deals

etc...

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#19

Post by mattmaroon »

Wow. I've dealt with Chris a little (and know people whose companies he has invested in, whose companies have gone both ways) and was always impressed but now am even more so. I obviously knew nothing about his financial situation but can admire anyone who'd put that much on the line when they smelled good gambles.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#20

Post by gojomo »

adrianwaj wrote: post #16
ramanujan wrote: post #11

Mark my words: all of Silicon Valley will regret it if the federal government gets involved in angel financing, "collusion" or no colllusion. It is not easy to build a Silicon Valley, but choking off deal flow with red tape could well destroy it. When the government enters an area on the basis of negative press coverage, it does not have an informed opinion or a light touch. Think about it: years later, we are still…

For me, minimum capital requirements to be an accredited investor is already far worse than the disease. I'd prefer to see certification programs that people raising money must apply-for, and have that be the basis of whether an investment is valid for the market, rather than placing a capital requirement on potential investors as the way to determine if an investor is smart enough to reject scams, and thus save the…

Excellent ideas. Why does a $1mm net worth indicate more 'sophistication' than (for example) having an MBA, or business-law-focused JD, or having passed the Series-7 or bar exams?

Or, there could be a standard waiver-of-claims-of-unsophistication allowing those under the current 'accredited' limits to get the same legal treatment as those meeting the limits.

Post reply on HN