AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway • Hacker News Board

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#71

Post by steveklabnik » Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 8:22 PM UTC

ajju wrote: post #70

steveklabnik wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the real test of whether anarchy is preferable to stable government ('anti-competitive' or not), is whether Somalia is doing better than the United States. A perfectly fair comparison would require Somalia to be under anarchy for the same number of years as the U.S. has been a democracy, but presumably you could pick younger democracies for an easier comparison. I think you will find that: 1) Anarchies, almos…

I think you're conflating the two definitions of anarchy, though you make good points if you s/anarchy/chaos/g;.

I, too, wish there was better data on this.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#72

Post by barnaby » Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 9:56 PM UTC

barnaby wrote: post #23

Sounds too good to be true.

Would the downvoters explain this one? Do you think anyone sincerely cares about your best interest the way this guy claims in his email? Because this sounds incredibly charitable.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#73

Post by joshu » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 12:06 AM UTC

lzw wrote: post #52

joshu wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The other issue that for angel investing is that you really ought to be doing 10+ investments a year to actually even out the risks so that you can get a return. That's a fairly high watermark.

I've done approx 45 investments. One has returned (a small amount) of money in five years, so far.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#74

Post by sfgary1 » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 4:38 AM UTC

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…

Though these guys have an outsize influence on Web 2.0 apps there are still enough angels out there to minimize the effect of any possibility of collusion among a few angels. If that was what the meeting was about, which I doubt. I think this is a storm in a teacup.The government has enough things to worry about in an economy going south to do anything here.

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#75

Post by newman314 » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 10:06 AM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #62

newman314 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not if his income was over $200K in the prior 2 years, and expected to be the same in the current year. The income level is an alternate, not additional, qualification. And, perhaps he fudged some numbers, by inflating the value of something illiquid, to claim to be accredited slightly before he was. As I understand it -- but could be wrong, IANAL -- this requirement isn't a matter of providing formal documentation t…

Can anyone comment if documentation is typically required (by the lawyers or startup) from an angel investor or is this assumed (scary)?

Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

#76

Post by stretchwithme » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 7:44 PM UTC

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.

You don't have to have anarchy to have competition in government. When people recognize individual sovereignty, its not necessary to fight over who will protect a piece of land and its people from thieves and invaders. Its just a matter of contract.

People can peacefully collaborate on their mutual security without coercing each other.