Edit: I guess there is also the possibility that my company will not be the next Facebook nor does it even aspire to be and because of that, I guess it might not be interesting to investors.
this should probably be a separate thread here or on Quora to discuss best techniques for marketing a deal on Angel List. i'll try and write a blog post on this or a Quora question in the future. it's worth diving into more.
The good news is that once you DO get get something eye-popping (an amazing prototype, a great advisor, a brilliant growth curve), AngelList can be like gasoline on a match-- you close faster and with better terms (at least that's what I've heard from multiple sources).
If used correctly it helps angels see higher deal flow and founders raise capital more efficiently.
1. AngelList has a backlog of submission on the investor and startup sides. It may be you just haven't been reviewed yet.
2. Add more info. When you think you have enough, add more. Info on your startup, fill out bios of key people, etc. etc.
2a. Unless you have figured out how to print money, you at some point have to sell something to someone. If you can't put effort into selling yourself on AngelList, that shows investors you are bad at running a business.
2b. See item #1. Someone at AngelList has to review your application and work directly with it. Do you call up customer service and refuse to give your account number? Of course not. You are less likely to get exposure if the employees of AngelList don't have to do a bunch of leg work to complete your app for you.
3. You may just have a horrible idea. As much as AngelList is a service for startups, it is a service for investors as well. It is possible your "Foursquare for Pets" was just marked as hidden.
4. Your AngelList submission is not the template for your final term sheet. List numbers on the low end to drum up interest, and if you have a good idea demand will swing things into your favor.
As they say, those who say it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those who are doing it.
Who knows if it will work, but I'm eager to see the results.
Edit: when I say Dave, I mean his writing style - I've never met the guy.
Most people in the Bay Area seem to be in a competition to see who can be the most modest, which has never been my style.
Like in sports or gaming, I always prefer the person who plays silently and speaks with purpose than someone who tends to trash talk while playing. But neither form of etiquette effects who is the better player.
I have a strong belief that any time you are offended, you should look within, not attack the offender.
usually it takes me about 5-6 hours to include the "full insanity" version with fonts, pictures, etc.
(anyway, i'm obviously an acquired taste... i won't be offended if you think i'm offensive.)
Seems most 'experts' feel that way.
The past 10 years returns of VC's investment strategy says nothing about his strategies relative performance.
what i meant was that blind trust in traditional VC strategy doesn't make any sense, since on average they suck.
my strategy is still new (<12 months old), so there's no historical performance to compare, outside my investing at Founders Fund (which looks pretty good so far) and my own angel investing (which also looks pretty good).
sorry i can't share #'s here on those, but as a personal investor i was in early on Mint, SlideShare, Simply Hired, & Mashery. as a professional investor at Founders Fund i was in early on Twilio, CrowdFlower, CreditKarma, Bitly, and several others which are doing pretty well.
still, it's too early to say whether i'm any good or not.
my point was simply that arguing status quo doesn't make sense when status quo is sucking pretty hard.
That said, your post does imply that the weak returns of the VCs last decade lend your approach merit when you point out their weak returns and then say:
"to be more specific: if we look at the #'s, on average it's more likely that high-volume, spray & pray investing -- which i will going forward refer to as "a quantitative investment strategy" -- is likely to be successful than a "focused, low-volume" investing strategy."
(Of course I assume you measure success by expected value, not the chance of being in the black after a small number of investments)
little bit complex to describe, adn we're still developing it so even i'm not final on which parts add most value.
but we are trying some new shit. some of it hopefully works ;)
Worst case, you have an existing relationship with a large number of startups, a percentage of which will undoubtedly go on to bigger things or exits -- the trick is of course in how big that percentage is.
This is evidenced somewhat by the increasingly large number of teams getting accepted by YC.
"Angel List is like Dangerous Sex with Super Models for Virgin Nerds.
yeah that's it -- imagine if you're Urkel and all of a sudden you get to find out who the newest Sports Illustrated hotties are, who they're screwing, and then SOMEHOW you discover an opportunity to SCREW THEM YOURSELF TOO! (omg, where do i sign?!?) ok, so you get the picture. this is probably why Bryce left the party."