

Are Hot U.S. Startups The New Bling For Rich Russians? - transburgh
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/20/are-hot-u-s-startups-the-new-bling-for-rich-russians/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

======
falsestprophet
That comment was silly and this article is sillier. Neither are grounded in
sound reasoning, but both meet universal acclaim at Hacker News. _There goes
the neighborhood._

So is there evidence Russians are investing in US technology start-ups as
status symbols?

    
    
      No.
    

Firstly, the "Russians" behind these investments are really just one fund
called Digital Sky Technologies.

Secondly, although this fund is located in Russia and is composed in part of
Russian money, the fund also includes investments by Goldman Sachs and Tiger
Global.

Thirdly, neither the Facebook nor Zynga investments are clearly recklessly
lavish. Techcrunch observed that "no one else wanted in at Facebook at that
$10 billion valuation." That is the very definition of being a high bidder
and, of course, being the highest bidder is required to win. Tiger Global,
Institutional Venture Partners and Andreessen Horowitz each invested in Zynga
at the same valuation as "the Russians."

So have "the Russians" involved Goldman Sachs, Tiger Global, Institutional
Venture Partners and Andereessen Horowitz in the private equity equivalent of
a coke and hooker binge?

I don't think so. Maybe DST is just another reasonably managed venture fund
and Techcrunch and a random Hacker News commenter are off the mark.

------
ABrandt
I don't mean to sidestep what is an interesting discussion on foreign
investments here, but I was a little surprised how prominently HN was featured
in this article. I've always seen the relationship between YC and TechCrunch
as tolerant at best. But here Arrington not only directly refers to "Hacker
News", but also fully quotes abalashov's comment. Are these two startup-
centric organizations completely intertwined now, or should we expect a new
rush of TC noobs? (I mean no disrespect by saying that either).

~~~
bilbo0s
Equally interesting that abalashov calls TC on using the completely
unsubstantiated conjectures of a lone commenter on an internet news board as
the basis on which to write an article.

That is the difference between HN and TC. On edit:HN, commenters generally
delineate their comments between that which is based on empirical evidence,
and that which is their own conjecture. This intellectual honesty that many,
but not all, HN users engage in makes HN 'feel' more reliable than TC. The rub
is that when HN is used as a reliable source, that same intellectual honesty
feels obliged to point out the fact that the source is not reliable. Even the
user who made the comment!

I think PG is to be congratulated on creating such a forum. And HN users
should be congratulated on pointing out flaws in debate points, even when the
debater agrees with your position.

~~~
codexon
_Equally interesting that abalashov calls TC on using the completely
unsubstantiated conjectures of a lone commenter on an internet news board as
the basis on which to write an article._

abalshov's comment did no such thing. He only wanted some level of "privacy"
that he expected to get from posting it on Hacker News instead of a high
profile website like TC. That's why he jokingly expressed concerns about being
found assassinated.

