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

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#51

Post by adrianwaj »

lionhearted wrote: post #28
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'd prefer to see certification programs that people raising money must apply-for I like the gist of your point, but this line scares me a lot. Too much opportunity for political favors or political blackballing.

Certification would more to do with proving an identity, a physical address, a bank account and being connected to real people. It's to make it more difficult for would-be scammers from being able to hide. Thus, a publically accessible website of who's raising money, for what, their photo, and some references who've vouched for this person would (I think and hope) significantly deter scammy behaviour. (of note, this type of information is becoming more accessible anyhow http://blog.programmableweb.com/2010/09/20/watch-out-for-ste... - stealthmodewatch.com)

On the other side of the coin, investors could take a simple multi-choice test on ROI, accounting and finance principles .. whatever.

I'd have to brainstorm further. If an arm has a problem, you don't cut it off, you fix it and make sure it doesn't happen again with creative solutions - because you're not solving any problem by amputating (or rather not applying that solution correctly if there are healthier alternatives), you're just creating more problems.

-- another solution may be to simply cap investments at a certain amount, so people can't invest their life-savings in one go.

-- also, a way to search on these micro investments (and micro investors too) would be great: http://www.google.com/finance/stockscreener http://www.formds.com/filings (hat tip gojomo)

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#52

Post by lzw »

joshu wrote: post #37
lzw wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accredited_investors If you could put 15-20k a month into startups, how are you not meeting the accreditation reqs? I think the requirements are to cut off companies from taking investments from little old ladies. It's the startup that would get in trouble, not you. You considered talking to a lawyer?

I could put that amount in at the end of the period, not the beginning, and accredation requires either a higher salary than i have, or a net worth over a million, which I don't have.

If preventing little old ladies was all that was needed, then it could be accomplished with a wavier.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#53

Post by known »

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…

I've a different pov. Govt intervention aka regulation is needed whenever & wherever there is an exploitation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfinance#Other_criticisms

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#54

Post by irahul »

ghshephard wrote: post #42
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'…

Then we must agree to disagree.

For analogies sake, let's talk about Google. Google hires the best geeks, provides free food, doesn't hire PHBs, have a large impact on the world in some ways etc etc. Its hiring best geeks works as a magnet pulling other geeks. Not hiring PHBs means programmers are comfortable working here. Work being done at Google having a large impact gives people a sense of accomplishment and validation. Working with like-minded people lowers the stress level compared to working with idiots who accidentally became programmers and who have no respect for the trade.

In comparison, a bodyshop doesn't do any of it and still does fine financially(I know; I worked for one). Both Google and bodyshop have the same motives with different paths. It's all fine but that doesn't mean Google can claim "We don't want money. We do it for the programmers. See how much we do for them. Checkout the bodyshop which doesn't do anything for the employees and makes a ton of money. Since we do a lot more compared to the bodyshop, it proves we aren't after money and we are working towards higher calling."

Ron Conway is doing just that. Substitute Google with Ron Conway and bodyshop with traditional VCs above.

By claiming he isn't there for money but is just helping people, he is being a hypocrite. Compared to traditional VCs, he might be working more towards the welfare of founders but that doesn't change the fact that it's business and he too is working towards ROI. There is no higher calling; it's just simple, plain business.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#55

Post by swombat »

thedjpetersen wrote: post #3

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.

An email sent to 10 public figures in the process of entering a media shit-storm? Personal?

You have a strange definition of the word "personal".

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#56

Post by adrianwaj »

lzw wrote: post #49
stretchwithme wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is Pres Obama's experience with health care... what would you be doing to fix health care?

"I remember my mother. She was 52 years old when she died of ovarian cancer, and you know what she was thinking about in the last months of her life? She wasn’t thinking about getting well. She wasn't thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality. She had been diagnosed just as she was transitioning between jobs. And she wasn’t sure whether insurance was going to cover the medical expenses because they might consider this a preexisting condition. I remember just being heartbroken, seeing her struggle through the paperwork and the medical bills and the insurance forms. So, I have seen what it's like when somebody you love is suffering because of a broken health care system. And it's wrong. It's not who we are as a people." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#57

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#58

Post by gjm11 »

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.

If I'm understanding your use of the word "anti-competitive" correctly, then any government, simply by virtue of being a government, is "anti-competitive". So what would constitute "healing"? Total anarchy? Welcome to Somalia.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#59

Post by jon_dahl »

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…

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.

Wow, that's cynical. "Freaking charities"?

If you'd ever met Chris Sacca, you'd know that this isn't true. He has just about the strongest reputation of any investor in SV, and doesn't need to lie awake at night worrying about what Ron Conway thinks of him.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#60

Post by steveklabnik »

gjm11 wrote: post #58
stretchwithme wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If I'm understanding your use of the word "anti-competitive" correctly, then any government, simply by virtue of being a government, is "anti-competitive". So what would constitute "healing"? Total anarchy? Welcome to Somalia.

There was a really good comment the other day regarding Somalia, but searchyc isn't finding it.

Basically, there's actually some studies that suggest Somalia is doing _better_ under 'anarchy' than not. It's only after the UN stopped trying to impose a state that things started getting better.

Post reply on HN