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…
The FBI is investigating AngelGate: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2010/09/fbi_rep...
AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway
31–40 of 76 posts
Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway
#32Mark 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…
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.
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
Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway
#33Mark 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…
Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway
#34Earlier 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.
Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway
#35We 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 shout-out to Conway saying "Hey - the meeting I attended, was above board - don't paint me with the second meeting brush"
It sounds like in the second meeting, the conversation departed from "How do we help entrepreneurs" and started sliding into "How do we increase value for angels". Maybe not full out (actionable) collusion in which any agreements were made (and the concept of agreement is pretty important in collusion) - but skirting dangerously close.
David Lee was at that second meeting (and, for all we know, was one of Arrington's sources - He had Three), likely gave conway the briefing, and conway, being savvy, realized he needed to immediately separate himself, particularly as all this email floating around is discoverable.
Nobody should, for a second, think that Ron Conway is writing email with the belief that it won't be seen in the public light.
Talking as a group about things like holding down valuations, dealing with YC leverage, and the impact of convertible notes on the Angel's cut of deals is all pretty dangerous territory. Sacca wasn't at the second meeting, so his email has to be taken in that context.
All in all I think Arrington has done a great service with some excellent blogging, not only to the startup/entrepreneur scene, but also, ironically, to the Super Angels themselves. By surfacing these conversations early on, I'm of the belief that he may have actually given them a wakeup call before they started doing (illegal?) things like agreeing as a group not to accept convertible notes.
This is hard hitting reporting that harkens back to a day of serious reporting - ironically done not by a "mainstream" news outlet like the WSJ, or NYT - but by a "mere" blogger.
kudos.
Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway
#36And 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 do for founders" is overdone. From where I see, the introductions and exposure that comes along with the Angels can help you get, well more introduction and exposure and may be, funding which you already have.
How does a company's success depend on these charitable deeds? It won't result in more paying customers or buyout. I don't like the tone of the mails where it makes it sound like founder are a bunch of ignorant chumps and they owe it to these Angles for the hard work and guidance. First, doesn't matter who the investor is, if founders and team aren't competent, the company would succumb. Second, the work angels are doing aren't for the founders - it's towards ROI.
Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway
#37Earlier 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…
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?
Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway
#38After 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…
Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
True, encryption probably wouldn't help, but you could probably come up with a scheme to watermark the messages. You could make it look like the same thing was sent a large CC list, but be able to determine the source of the leak by a changed word or two. Makes you wonder if some of these smart people are already doing it.
Re: AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway
#40After 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…
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 popular (which i use most of the time, and both PG & Mark Suster have written about lately), and a number of related topics -- again, many of which i mentioned on my blog post in response to Arrington's initial post.
altho some folks were bitching about startup valuations being higher lately, THERE WERE NO conversations about "price-fixing" or other BS mike reported... which is why i got so pissed when mike made such accusations, even though he wasn't there for any conversation & only reported based on anonymous sources.
while some people might suggest Mike's reporting as "hard-hitting", i'd characterize it as more inflammatory and not very well sourced. if he'd bothered to talk in more detail with any of us who were there before rushing to print, he might have gotten a lot more information about the discussions, instead of just printing one anonymous source's perspective... and perhaps less criticism from those who think he's just creating controversy to drive attention prior to the Disrupt conference.
mike has a right to report what he thinks is news, but that doesn't mean it's ok to go to print with only anonymous sources perspectives on that matter, particularly when others (like me) are willing to publicly state otherwise.
in any case, i guess we'll hear more about this in the morning on the panel. i'm tired and i'm going to bed.
believe what you will.