“Angels” that aren’t actually angels, and the problems that poses
blog.ycombinator.com
“Angels” that aren’t actually angels, and the problems that poses
1–10 of 37 posts
Re: “Angels” that aren’t actually angels, and the problems that poses
#2Throwaway account for obvious reasons:
While the words of warning in this article may be true, they (sadly) sound like a thinly veiled complaint about competition increasing pressure on YC's investment turf.
Founders should be grateful for, not skeptical of, increased funding and competition in early rounds as it should help them raise on better terms!
Re: “Angels” that aren’t actually angels, and the problems that poses
#3Don't underestimate the value of the angel investor being a person you can talk to. I've made several angel investments, and sometimes the company needed to restructure in a way that a strictly profit-focused institutional investor would not have allowed. Since I invest mainly because it's interesting and it helps people, I've never said no to what the founders wanted to do.
Of course, individual angels can be hard-asses. But an institutional fund is legally required to be a hard-ass. So I agree with Aaron's advice: you should know exactly whose money you're taking, and go for as long as possible only taking money from people you can reason with. If you don't have a good sense of the investor, ask a founder they invested in where the company ran into trouble.
Re: “Angels” that aren’t actually angels, and the problems that poses
#4"LP dollars", LPs = Limited Partners = https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-limited...
Re: “Angels” that aren’t actually angels, and the problems that poses
#5Throwaway account for obvious reasons: While the words of warning in this article may be true, they (sadly) sound like a thinly veiled complaint about competition increasing pressure on YC's investment turf. Founders should be grateful for, not skeptical of, increased funding and competition in early rounds as it should help them raise on better terms!
The complaint seems to be about the duplicity, not the raw interest in investing.
Re: “Angels” that aren’t actually angels, and the problems that poses
#6Throwaway account for obvious reasons: While the words of warning in this article may be true, they (sadly) sound like a thinly veiled complaint about competition increasing pressure on YC's investment turf. Founders should be grateful for, not skeptical of, increased funding and competition in early rounds as it should help them raise on better terms!
There is, of course, a potential conflict of interest anytime an investor gives advice about other investors. But not as much as you'd think, when the investors specialize in different stages.
The rounds typically go:
seed - angel - series A - series B - series C ...
Re: “Angels” that aren’t actually angels, and the problems that poses
#7Throwaway account for obvious reasons: While the words of warning in this article may be true, they (sadly) sound like a thinly veiled complaint about competition increasing pressure on YC's investment turf. Founders should be grateful for, not skeptical of, increased funding and competition in early rounds as it should help them raise on better terms!
There is, of course, a potential conflict of interest anytime an investor gives advice about other investors. But not as much as you'd think, when the investors specialize in different stages. The rounds typically go: seed - angel - series A - series B - series C ... YC only does seed and series B onwards, so it can give unbiased advice about angel and series A. By the time a startup is doing series B, they should ha…
I've never understood these terms. Is there a clear definition for those?
Seed is very little money, angel is more money, but still small enough that a wealthy individual can provide it?
Series A, B and C are pretty much the same, it just so happens that companies usually re-capitalize three times before going bust or IPO?
(The whole space is very perplexing, the idea of diluting earlier investors sounds outright fraud-like to me, but obviously it's well-accepted and probably priced in.)
Re: “Angels” that aren’t actually angels, and the problems that poses
#8This is a bullshit article... ycominator is an “angel” who invests in “startups” like alpaca markets, a “free” trading platform.
This “free” trading platform, isn’t a startup, it’s a front for the front running side of the business alpaca.ai, yes the users in this YC backed front, are just the inputs to a more elaborate Japanese trading firm that front runs US markets.
You guys are Hippocrates.
Re: “Angels” that aren’t actually angels, and the problems that poses
#9Boston is guilty. New englanders are too practical to be angels.
Re: “Angels” that aren’t actually angels, and the problems that poses
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is, of course, a potential conflict of interest anytime an investor gives advice about other investors. But not as much as you'd think, when the investors specialize in different stages. The rounds typically go: seed - angel - series A - series B - series C ... YC only does seed and series B onwards, so it can give unbiased advice about angel and series A. By the time a startup is doing series B, they should ha…
I've never understood these terms. Is there a clear definition for those? Seed is very little money, angel is more money, but still small enough that a wealthy individual can provide it? Series A, B and C are pretty much the same, it just so happens that companies usually re-capitalize three times before going bust or IPO? (The whole space is very perplexing, the idea of diluting earlier investors sounds outright fra…
Angels are often part of seed rounds. Differentiating between the two seems pointless.
Also dilution is part of equity. There is nothing fraudulent about it.