21–30 of 76 posts
I don't think I would like it if I knew a e-mail intended to be personal ended up on techcrunch. I don't think the leaking of these personal e-mails is very polite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think the key with micro-finance is that investors can be diverse, and they can actively seek investments which they can then personally assist, and at the same time entrepreneurs can also try and locate the right investors who'll facilitate the growth of their system.
This is something baby-boomers would love doing, with the time, disposable income, and connections they can offer.
Furthermore, imagine being able to tell a CEO "we'll let you use our api but only if we can have equity in your system." In this case, microfinance supports systems integration.
Another benefit, is that micro-finance would allow entrepreneurs to raise funds more quickly to build more systems, with the goal of having 1 or 2 accepted into some larger system that can pay for its usage.
-- I am thinking a http://www.kiva.org but for entrepreneurs and investors. It'd have to track reputations and act as a hub for financings and subsequent distributions.
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…
I'd be quite surprised if we see the issue cross over into the mainstream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
I think it is a shame that Mike gets the attention he does, and that his website gets the traffic it does. This is not the first time he has impeached his credibility.
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…
I like the gist of your point, but this line scares me a lot. Too much opportunity for political favors or political blackballing.
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…
Meanwhile, I have easily lost an angel investment's sized amount of money in equities and derivatives I've controlled. (and made many times that in positive returns... but it is the losses the government pretends like they are protecting me from.)
I could have been putting $15k-$20k into several startups a year, for the past 15 years, up to one a month in recent years, if the government would let me.
Think about that-- it would have been ILLEGAL for me to invest in these companies (or for them to take my money)... while at the same time I've incurred complete losses of the same size in the public markets, and could blow all of it and more at any casino on the country in a weekend.
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 s…
I think this is really all about Mike ego not being stroked enough.
And no, I don't think it is outlandish to posit that Mike made the whole set of allegations up.