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

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#41

Post by newman314 »

lzw wrote: post #29
adrianwaj wrote: post #16

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…

I cannot meet those "accredited investor" requirements, which if you think about it, are really meant to cut off dealflow for anyone who isn't already rich. 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 be…

Not trying to throw Chris under the bus here but if his stated net worth is <$1million when he started, was he not in violation of the definition of "accredited investor" per Wikipedia?

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#42

Post by ghshephard »

irahul wrote: post #36

I don't get it. These mails from Ron Conway and Chris Sacca sounds like founders are babies in their diapers who won't even find the way to the toilet without their angel's "coaching" them. They are taking the "angel" thing too seriously. And why does these mails have to sound like charity or some great cause? These angles aren't donating to charity - it would be good if it doesn't sound like that. This "how much we…

"Second, the work angels are doing aren't for the founders - it's towards ROI."

Some Angels are focused on that. Others have a different take, from Ron Conway's Email:

"I want to clarify once and for all my total disagreement with your values and motives for being investors.

I have stated consistently for year that I invest because I love helping entrepenuers and watching them learn and succeed."

And, as someone who's been through several startups, and seen those run by seasoned 'serial entrepreneurs' (who've learned the hard way, and could be angels in their own right (and later have done so), and some run by first timers (who haven't even heard of the phrase "term sheet", let alone know how to negotiate one) - I'd suggest that there is a certain class of founder, an entrepreneur out to build a great product for the first time, that while not a 'baby in a diaper', is a 'babe in the woods' - and having someone who is working for _them_, rather than 'ROI' can quite often make all the difference between success and failure.

VCs (at least the three or four I've had exposure to at my low level) are focused on returns. Great angels are focused on helping entrepreneurs succeed. A VC will pursue a strategy that results in complete and utter failure for some of their investments, if it means overall greater returns for their aggregate portfolio of companies. That's just not in the DNA of the few angels I know.

I'd be cautious in trying to understand what the motivator is for these angels - for some of them, their mission is even more important than charity - it's a higher calling in which they are trying to help entrepreneurs succeed, rather than simply chase the almighty dollar. The money is important insofar as it is an indicator of their success, and as a tool to continue their mission - but not necessarily the objective.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#45

Post by razin »

jogle wrote: post #32
dschobel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the story getting any coverage outside the SV echo chamber? I'd be quite surprised if we see the issue cross over into the mainstream.

I read something on msnbc a couple days ago but can't find the link. Here are some from more mainstream sources than TechCrunch, though: http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/09/24/the-daily-sta... http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/maggieshiels/2010/09... http://www.businessinsider.com/angelgate-is-overblown-2010-9

I'd hardly consider Business Insider to be mainstream.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#46

Post by bl4k »

davemc500hats wrote: post #40
ghshephard wrote: post #35

After careful reading of Sacca, Conway, and Arrington, I've come to the conclusion that they might all be correct in their representation. We know there were at least two meetings of the "Super Angels" - It's possible (likely) that the first meeting that Sacca attend was an aboveboard engagement in which all of the positive conversations that took place were as Sacca described it. Indeed, I read Sacca's email as a sh…

both meetings were aboveboard... period. the discussions at the second dinner meeting were similar in nature to the first, altho Chris wasn't at the 2nd dinner. we also discussed ways to reduce legal costs, increase exit opportunities by using services like Second Market, how other services like Angel List were innovating & bringing access to more investors / entrepreneurs, how convertible notes were becoming more po…

This should have been your blog post

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#47

Post by robk »

bl4k wrote: post #46
davemc500hats wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

both meetings were aboveboard... period. the discussions at the second dinner meeting were similar in nature to the first, altho Chris wasn't at the 2nd dinner. we also discussed ways to reduce legal costs, increase exit opportunities by using services like Second Market, how other services like Angel List were innovating & bringing access to more investors / entrepreneurs, how convertible notes were becoming more po…

This should have been your blog post

this is much more readable font-wise :)

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#48

Post by DJN »

davemc500hats wrote: post #40
ghshephard wrote: post #35

After careful reading of Sacca, Conway, and Arrington, I've come to the conclusion that they might all be correct in their representation. We know there were at least two meetings of the "Super Angels" - It's possible (likely) that the first meeting that Sacca attend was an aboveboard engagement in which all of the positive conversations that took place were as Sacca described it. Indeed, I read Sacca's email as a sh…

both meetings were aboveboard... period. the discussions at the second dinner meeting were similar in nature to the first, altho Chris wasn't at the 2nd dinner. we also discussed ways to reduce legal costs, increase exit opportunities by using services like Second Market, how other services like Angel List were innovating & bringing access to more investors / entrepreneurs, how convertible notes were becoming more po…

IMHO, Arrington misinterpreted the core purpose of the meeting and fanned the flames of damaging rumours across the Internet. Poor form if you ask me.

It appears that the first meeting was focused on improving the financing options for startups whilst the second meeting appears to have focused on improving the ROI for investors.

Can someone explain why this is a problem?

If angel investors don't make a good return after risking their own capital, their funds will be diverted elsewhere (as per the rules of a capitalist system) and that is a huge disadvantage to the startup space because valuations will still decrease anyway.

Summary - angelgate is a non-story. Move on people. There's nothing to see here apart from another chance to procrastinate instead of working on your startup (which is highly likely to fail anyway)

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#49

Post by lzw »

stretchwithme wrote: post #34
ajju wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is FBI the agency tasked with investigating allegations of anti-competitive behavior? Interesting. This is the last thing the valley needed though.

I love how government, the most anti-competitive entity there is, will be investigating anti-competitive behavior. Physician, heal thyself.

I hate how you were down voted for pointing out a simple truth. Every industry government gets involved in, it passes laws making competition illegal. We had a thriving and quickly growing mail industry in this country before government took it over (for the purpose of censorship at the time) and made delivering first class mail illegal. They actually do sting operations and fine companies caught forwarding "non time sensitive mail" via fedex!

This is just one example. Obama took over general motors by force, against the will of bond holders and handed out a large chunk to the unions.... And then a few months later a big scare was started against Toyota on spurious grounds. This is not a coincidence.

Recently they made it illegal to sell private health insurance (not fully in effect yet so you can still get it, though prices are rising) and soon only government insurance will be available, though private companies will be allowed to underwrite, presuming of course, that they currier enough favor with government regulators.

The very definition of government-- a monopoly on the use of force over a geographic region- is anti competitive, as it prevents ant other governments from forming in the area... Even if the people in a particular area prefer a different form of government.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#50

Post by points »

dannyr wrote: post #44
points wrote: post #43

BORING. How much longer will this go on? I don't come to HN to read infinite responses to the boring news that investors meet and chat. Who the hell cares?

Apparently, you do since you care enough to reply.

I care enough about hacking to try and keep HN a useful place. Unfortunately it seems most people here are just interested in gossip and giving Techcrunch pageviews.
Post reply on HN