Ron Conway Would Like To Clarify His Nuclear Attack On Fellow Angels

http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/26/ron-conway-would-like-to-clarify-his-nuclear-attack-on-fellow-angels/

by ssclafani • 16 years ago

89 35 16 years ago

mgrouchy2• 16 years ago

The only thing I like more then actual news is more info on angelgate. awesome.

It's drama, but it's also of life-changing importance to some people on HN. It's also Sunday, so it's a slow news day anyways.

jeromec4• 16 years ago

AngelGate is actual news. It may not be a story broke by CNN, or which appeals to their audience, but it involves real money, people, and laws. Apparently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is now involved. This is not some frivolous gossip story. Also, it does seem to be topical considering it's on a spin-off news forum for a site with the primary purpose of angel investing. I for one am quite interested in learning more facts about this story.

mgrouchy2• 16 years ago

It was actual news and it is important. It seems to have now descended somewhat into gossip.

tapp• 16 years ago

I'm actually glad that this was and continues to be a big story in our world; it says something. I'm reminded of @cdixon's comment on Twitter the other day:

'One thing angelgate shows is how ethics-driven the startup world is. On Wall Street, meeting to fix prices is called "lunch."'

js2• 16 years ago

Last Thursday Tech Crunch published a leaked email from me to some angel investors who attended the Bin 38 dinner.

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!

jhuckestein• 16 years ago

Topic closed.

alexandros2• 16 years ago

This is getting tricky again... We now know that Ron Conway knew about the dinner beforehand. We also know that his partner did not want to attend, presumably because he knew the type of conversations that would be had. They talked and decided that David Lee should go.

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.

ryanwaggoner• 16 years ago

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?

alexandros2• 16 years ago

Of course it is. Nothing at all is certain when working with so little information, which is why I mentioned probabilities.

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.

harold• 16 years ago

I admire Ron Conway for his business acumen and regard for entrepreneurs. But he's taking on a lot of needless baggage for continuing to talk about a meeting he himself did not attend, and for continuing to speak on behalf of his partner in an ambiguously denial-oriented style. "thou doth protest too much" comes to mind. The whole thing seems fishier than it probably really is because of it.

alttab2• 16 years ago

I would tend to agree. Even at this point if no one said anything it will fade into nothing and we'll all move on.

Generally, I took away from this entire thing is you never really know the whole truth, so more information is your only best friend.

adrianwaj• 16 years ago

Actually, I would say that the Angelgate meetings have been happening for a long time. Conway blasted all those people in the Nuclear email, but how would he know what to say if he hadn't been to either of the last two Bin 38 meetings? Did Lee tell him what happened in the first meeting and the leak just crystallized his thoughts, triggering the nuclear email? Why didn't Conway go to the first meeting? Being an entrepreneur's guy, Conway with Lee realized when discussing whether or not to go was "damned if we do, damned if we don't, but we'll be more damned if we don't" turns out due to the leak he was wrong, and so now wants to distance himself from the organized greed, which in the open seems all the more repulsive.

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?

tchae• 16 years ago

I'm just happy he's using his spell checker now. No more "entrepeneur"

bvi• 16 years ago

It's very interesting that Ron Conway appears to have known about - and endorsed! - David Lee's attendance at these meetings.

Did it really need to take 2 meetings (oh, and Arrington's input) to voice disapproval?

kyro• 16 years ago

Slightly off topic, but is anyone else a bit surprised at the grammatical errors in Ron's letters?

josefresco• 16 years ago

Not this again.

shareme• 16 years ago

A question..

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?

arst• 16 years ago

Several miss spellings were in the posted original RC email at TC..miss spellings that you would think RC would not make.

What would make you think that?

brudgers• 16 years ago

> 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

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.

limedaring• 16 years ago

The misspellings missing from the second email are easily explained by the likelihood that this email was "proofread" by several people beforehand (since it was known to be going public), whereas the other was a quick personal email with no intention of going public (until it was leaked). I believe pg mentioned that Ron would review the public emails several time with others.

Also... the 2nd email, Ron mentioned the first. So the first is real, straight from his mouth.

RealGeek• 16 years ago

“I regret David Lee was involved in the gatherings. I am sure he does too.”

In the previous email, it actually looked like Ron Conway threw David Lee under the bus.

This clarification was much needed.

raquo• 16 years ago

I think that was unintended and this clarification is of exactly that part of the original email.

darwinGod• 16 years ago

Seriously, there might be better things to discuss on HN, than the Ron Conway saga. :( Last I checked there are about 18 comments on Techcrunch on that article. Bound to be a hell lot more soon. The previous one had 411 comments, 2000 Facebook likes, 1786 retweets on techcrunch So where ever you hide, you are not going to miss the mails and clarification of Ron Conway. I dont think ANYTHING of value is added through speculation/opinionating over here. Let the guys at techcrunch do their job..we can catch up whatever is happening by googling "techcrunch Ron Conway" :)

tjpick• 16 years ago

I'm quite enjoying it. It seems of interest to the startup world, and I personally don't twit or facebook or go directly to techcrunch if I can avoid it.

Tycho• 16 years ago

What I don't quite get is... how angel investors can collude effectively. It reminds me a bit of having a 'monopoly' on advertising. I suspect there are good arguments to be made, I'd be grateful if anyone could shed light on them.

DevX101• 16 years ago

Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching.

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.

bhiggins• 16 years ago

Ron comes across as a phony.

jakerocheleau• 16 years ago

not at all?

Ron Conway Would Like To Clarify His Nuclear Attack On Fellow Angels

Related Stories