Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

both meetings were aboveboard... period. the discussions at the second dinner meeting were similar in nature to the first, altho Chris wasn't at the 2nd dinner.

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.




This should have been your blog post


this is much more readable font-wise :)


IMHO, Arrington misinterpreted the core purpose of the meeting and fanned the flames of damaging rumours across the Internet. Poor form if you ask me.

It appears that the first meeting was focused on improving the financing options for startups whilst the second meeting appears to have focused on improving the ROI for investors.

Can someone explain why this is a problem?

If angel investors don't make a good return after risking their own capital, their funds will be diverted elsewhere (as per the rules of a capitalist system) and that is a huge disadvantage to the startup space because valuations will still decrease anyway.

Summary - angelgate is a non-story. Move on people. There's nothing to see here apart from another chance to procrastinate instead of working on your startup (which is highly likely to fail anyway)




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: