
Ron Conway Would Like To Clarify His Nuclear Attack On Fellow Angels - ssclafani
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/26/ron-conway-would-like-to-clarify-his-nuclear-attack-on-fellow-angels/
======
alexandros
This is getting tricky again... We now know that Ron Conway knew about the
dinner beforehand. We also know that his partner did not want to attend,
presumably because he knew the type of conversations that would be had. They
talked and decided that David Lee should go.

To me it seems that what changed before&after the dinner, was the publicity it
took, which switched Ron Conway from a 'wait&see' approach (at the very least)
to the openly hostile approach we saw in the 'nuclear bomb' email.

While before this update I gave Ron the benefit of the doubt (not in small
part due to pg vouching), it now seems that he was much less surprised than I
thought.

My estimate that the 'nuclear' email was damage control intended to be
publicised has just gone up.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
_To me it seems that what changed before &after the dinner, was the publicity
it took, which switched Ron Conway from a 'wait&see' approach (at the very
least) to the openly hostile approach we saw in the 'nuclear bomb' email._

Isn't it also possible that Ron Conway and David Lee decided David should go
because they didn't know what was going to go down, and then once they knew,
Ron decided to distance himself from that group?

~~~
alexandros
Of course it is. Nothing at all is certain when working with so little
information, which is why I mentioned probabilities.

However, we know that two such dinners took place, and that David Lee was
present at both. Also if they didn't know what was going to go down, why
didn't David Lee want to go in the first place?

Again, we are only talking probabilities here, there is a huge amount we
certainly don't know.

~~~
jeromec
Another possibility: David Lee is the leak. It may have been Ron Conway
suggesting he attend to see what was going on. Even if he isn't the leak I
tend to think David Lee was there simply to find out what was happening for SV
Angel, not having intent to form agreements.

~~~
pointillistic
What's the connection between Arrington and Conway? Someone told Mike about
the meeting (as he wrote, he wasn't invited). Then someone told Arrington
about the content of the meeting (Mike wasn't there). Connect the dots.

It's possible that Ron Conway intended to blow it up from the beginning,
including his own plant there. But as it always happens the shrapnel takes the
unexpected course. Consider this a badly botched operation.

~~~
jeromec
Keep in mind Michael Arrington said he talked to three different people who
were at the meeting. It's possible David Lee was one of them. I have a hard
time believing all Angels assembled were comfortable with the direction the
meetings appeared to be taking. I think someone (possibly publicly defensive,
and with a flamboyant writing style) had the bright idea to bring Angels
together for mutually beneficial agreements to control market forces affecting
them, but before things went very far things went public.

------
harold
I admire Ron Conway for his business acumen and regard for entrepreneurs. But
he's taking on a lot of needless baggage for continuing to talk about a
meeting he himself did not attend, and for continuing to speak on behalf of
his partner in an ambiguously denial-oriented style. "thou doth protest too
much" comes to mind. The whole thing seems fishier than it probably really is
because of it.

~~~
adrianwaj
Actually, I would say that the Angelgate meetings have been happening for a
long time. Conway blasted all those people in the Nuclear email, but how would
he know what to say if he hadn't been to either of the last two Bin 38
meetings? Did Lee tell him what happened in the first meeting and the leak
just crystallized his thoughts, triggering the nuclear email? Why didn't
Conway go to the first meeting? Being an entrepreneur's guy, Conway with Lee
realized when discussing whether or not to go was "damned if we do, damned if
we don't, but we'll be more damned if we don't" turns out due to the leak he
was wrong, and so now wants to distance himself from the organized greed,
which in the open seems all the more repulsive.

Welcome to the The Collusion Room, where "you can check out anytime you like,
but you can never leave." I wouldn't just limit this to Angels either, the
problem is knowing when to draw the line between collusion and cooperation.
Where and when do VCs meet like this, and how about Fund managers? Who watches
over clubs such as <http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org> ?

Who actually setup the Bin 38 meeting?

------
RealGeek
_“I regret David Lee was involved in the gatherings. I am sure he does too.”_

In the previous email, it actually looked like Ron Conway threw David Lee
under the bus.

This clarification was much needed.

~~~
raquo
I think that was unintended and this clarification is of exactly that part of
the original email.

------
bvi
It's very interesting that Ron Conway appears to have known about - and
endorsed! - David Lee's attendance at these meetings.

Did it really need to take 2 meetings (oh, and Arrington's input) to voice
disapproval?

------
DevX101
Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching.

I value the character judgment of a few people who have vouched for Conway
(including pg), so i assume he's not a dishonorable man, but have no illusions
-- your best interests as an entrepreneur aren't the same as the best interest
of investors. Sure, they want to see you do well, but there will often be
disagreements on how much to risk and how much to pay to see you get that
succes.

I always say investors can get a 10% success rate and be incredibly
successful. You, however, need a 100% success rate.

Yes, you need the angels, and if product/market is big enough , you'll need
VCs. But don't kid yourself, investors are your 'friendly adversaries'. If you
keep this in mind, and recognize the symbiotic relationship for what it is,
you won't get disillusioned if thing don't exactly go your way.

------
Tycho
What I don't quite get is... how angel investors can collude effectively. It
reminds me a bit of having a 'monopoly' on advertising. I suspect there are
good arguments to be made, I'd be grateful if anyone could shed light on them.

------
darwinGod
Seriously, there might be better things to discuss on HN, than the Ron Conway
saga. :( Last I checked there are about 18 comments on Techcrunch on that
article. Bound to be a hell lot more soon. The previous one had 411 comments,
2000 Facebook likes, 1786 retweets on techcrunch So where ever you hide, you
are not going to miss the mails and clarification of Ron Conway. I dont think
ANYTHING of value is added through speculation/opinionating over here. Let the
guys at techcrunch do their job..we can catch up whatever is happening by
googling "techcrunch Ron Conway" :)

~~~
tjpick
I'm quite enjoying it. It seems of interest to the startup world, and I
personally don't twit or facebook or go directly to techcrunch if I can avoid
it.

------
mgrouchy
The only thing I like more then actual news is more info on angelgate.
awesome.

~~~
jeromec
AngelGate _is_ actual news. It may not be a story broke by CNN, or which
appeals to their audience, but it involves real money, people, and laws.
Apparently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is now involved. This is not
some frivolous gossip story. Also, it does seem to be topical considering it's
on a spin-off news forum for a site with the primary purpose of angel
investing. I for one am quite interested in learning more facts about this
story.

~~~
mgrouchy
It was actual news and it is important. It seems to have now descended
somewhat into gossip.

~~~
jeromec
I agree any news we receive right now will have a gossip feel to it. Nobody is
under oath, after all. However, I think we can learn some relevant (even if
speculative) information from those closest to the situation.

------
shareme
A question..

Several miss spellings were in the posted original RC email at TC..miss
spellings that you would think RC would not make.

Are we sure that the original RC email that TC posted was real and from RC?

Things are just not matching..

But for a group of Super Angles not to know that they cannot participate in a
discussion where they suggest to collude to price fix.. tells me that I should
not take any business advice from them..How about rest of HN readers?

~~~
brudgers
> _But for a group of Super Angles not to know that they cannot participate in
> a discussion where they suggest to collude to price fix.. tells me that I
> should not take any business advice from them_

Collude if you can get away with it is bad ethical advice.

On the other hand it is consistent with the amoral (not to be confused with
immoral) standards by which business may be expected to operate. And from a
rational economic actor standpoint it makes a lot of sense.

That's why the story is plausible.

Even if we don't like the implications.

------
bhiggins
Ron comes across as a phony.

~~~
jakerocheleau
not at all?

------
jhuckestein
Topic closed.

------
tchae
I'm just happy he's using his spell checker now. No more "entrepeneur"

------
kyro
Slightly off topic, but is anyone else a bit surprised at the grammatical
errors in Ron's letters?

~~~
josefresco
Not this again.

------
js2
_Last Thursday Tech Crunch published a leaked email from me to some angel
investors who attended the Bin 38 dinner.

I would like to clarify some confusion from that email.

David Lee, my partner at SV Angel did not want to go the Bin 38 dinner. We
talked and then agreed that he should go.

David Lee shares the same passion and satisfaction as I do in helping
entrepreneurs bring their innovation to fruition and that’s why we work
together and I am proud to call him a close friend and partner.

This is the last time I am going to say anything about this topic since we
must focus our attention back where it belongs..with the entrepreneurs and
helping them build great companies!_

