Ron Conway Would Like To Clarify His Nuclear Attack On Fellow Angels
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
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.
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?
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.
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.
I think the simplest explanation is that Conway either wasn't aware of the agenda or wasn't aware of the scope of it. That would explain his regret for Lee being there.
Generally, I took away from this entire thing is you never really know the whole truth, so more information is your only best friend.
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?
In the previous email, it actually looked like Ron Conway threw David Lee under the bus.
This clarification was much needed.
Did it really need to take 2 meetings (oh, and Arrington's input) to voice disapproval?
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.
'One thing angelgate shows is how ethics-driven the startup world is. On Wall Street, meeting to fix prices is called "lunch."'
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?
What would make you think that?
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.
Also... the 2nd email, Ron mentioned the first. So the first is real, straight from his mouth.
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!