TechCrunch50 has few younger first time entrepreneuers

A cui bono (who benefits) analysis can often prove enlightening. I think the point of the article is that many presenting at TC50 could well afford DEMO if they chose to. So there may be other reasons for the creation of TC50 (or encouraging its expansion from TC40 to TC50) than bringing the benefits of a launch venue to start-ups that can't afford DEMO.

That's what I thought too, the startups they chose should not require them to have $18,500 to be in.

As much as I don't think too much of their picks, they still don't have to pay $18,500.

That's not what I wrote nor is it what I suggested. As I made clear, in his attacks on DEMO, Michael Arrington claimed that the fees DEMO charges presenters are tantamount to "payola." One of his blatant insinuations was that startups shouldn't be forced to pay to present because doing so is exploitative and drains them of capital that could be put to better use elsewhere.

He argued that TechCrunch50 selections were completely merit-based and that he is now providing the only major launch venue that's financially viable for young startups that don't have a spare $18,500.

Frankly, I think if you look at the startups that were selected and who is behind them, you can only come to two possible conclusions:

1. Silicon Valley's consumer internet scene is seriously f*cked. 2. Startups founded by (or associated with) people Arrington knows or is connected to in some way were favored.

I could honestly care less about the selections but calling Arrington's disingenuous arguments about TechCrunch50 disingenuous (which was the point of my post) is well-deserved in this case, especially after Valleywag pointed out that a startup involved with Michael Arrington's associate, friend and Edgeio co-founder Keith Teare was included. Apparently Teare is a TechCrunch shareholder as well if that's not enough conflict for you.

For everyone who does not know, Russ is referring to Dropbox

I don't know about that. The drama with TC50/DEMO has soured me on the whole affair, but I think it's still proceeding along the lines it was designed for.

If you have the goods, you're in. If you can't afford it, no problem, there's no charge. If you can afford it, well, still no problem, because you have a cool "startup".

I think in some cases the definition of startup has been stretched, and that's the only area where I might have some qualms.