On the investment side, I think it's interesting how some of the older notions of control and influence by investors in a startup are changing. Surely this is one of the best times in recent memory to start a tech company.
You want me to sugar coat it for you Taylor? Here ya go:
"Despite Bryce's interesting thoughts on the value of angel communities like Angle List, I'm left wondering if some portion of his problem might be driven by the fact that said service might make competing for deals a little harder."
You want more PR speak than that?! I can write it in any tone you like kid... you want it in a waltz or blue grass version?
I'm the master of blunt, but I can give you medicine any way you want to take it..... but you're taking the medicine at the end of the day.
From an entrepreneur's perspective, investors who talk about needing more control, priced rounds, etc. so that they can add more value are no longer attractive to work with. There is nothing stopping an investor from adding value regardless of the structure of the deal.
It comes down to control and the incentives for seed-stage startups giving up so much control at an early stage are simply no longer there.
May I offer you a complimentary ticket to the @LAUNCH HackAThon taking place on May 23-25th here in San Francisco?
Are you saying that if a startup would rather take money from someone like OATV then they are stupid entrepreneurs?
Good luck playing with your ball in that backyard with mommy. The rest of us are going to Naval’s playground.
Am I correct to think that Naval does an initial screen of applicants before sending them on to members of the list? If so, aren't you trusting Naval's selection bias / pattern matching? What if you don't want that as an investor?
Obviously OATV is a fine firm, and taking money from them is great. It's ignoring Angel List that would be stupid.
And certainly it's stupid for OATV to ignore/block out angel list... that's sort of the point of my calling out Bryce. Who in their right mind would block a potential deal and information source!??!!? That's just idiotic... and I know Bryce isn't an idiot.
Thus my conclusion that Bryce is grandstanding for attention..... mission accomplished!
2. Naval does a light screen and "short circulation" from what i understand. This means he'll send a deal to < 10 folks to see if it's get traction before blasting everyone. So, it's sort of two-layer filtering I guess.
You won't see bad, or un-fundable, companies on angel list. However, you will see a range of weak to strong ones.
I think if you are an entrepreneur and you skip angel list that you are stupid. Not sure how you make the logic jump from that statement over to "taking money from OATV makes you stupid."
I should have clarified: some entrepreneurs may fail to raise money from AngelList but that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't try to raise money elsewhere and it also doesn't mean they won't ultimately succeed.
Also, a startup may have an awesome team or product but without social proof they will likely fare better applying to YC/TechStars/incubator than AL.
so looks like only people who take decisions by themselves, not relying on an opinion of a crowd, would win that deal ;)
and, how investors consider themselves sortof saviors, ones in the millions, which is bad for the deal as well. so @jason is right too.