Comments on: AngelList Boulder and Some Thoughts on Seed Investing

By: @IvanGaviria

@IvanGaviria — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:14:14 +0000

Brad, I just posted a comment on Fred's blog this weekend that was very much in line with your post. Having seen a ton of these deals go through our Firm in the last year or so, it's clear to me that the seed investing space is evolving at a super high speed. There are lots of "traditional VCs" who have been very nimble and innovative in adjusting their process, terms, etc. to better compete for seed stage deals and, of course, there are many angels who frankly suck and vice versa. I've worked on a couple of deals lately where angels have over negotiated, demanded goofy terms and generally served to generate legal fees, mgmt distraction and general pain totally out of proportion to the size of their investment.

As such, I think for the entrepreneur, it's all about doing the work to really research investors and dig into their styles, reputations, references, etc. The good news, however, is the incredible proliferation of information readily available to entrepreneurs and the number of industry insiders who are openly sharing, discussing and explaining these issues (you, Fred, Suster, etc. etc.). To me, that is a truly revolutionary change from even a few years ago (let alone 10 years ago).

By: @hgadhia

@hgadhia — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:23:30 +0000

What would be really insightful to understand which VCs you think are good seed investors and why. The entrepreneur has always had it drilled into them to look at signalling risk as a hugely important issue, but as long as VCs invest in seed in a similar fashion to a Series A (budgeting follow-ons, being at least semi-active, not just using it as an option), I think it all becomes moot. Good link from Chris Dixon earlier today on how LearnBoost overcame some of these issues and had 4 VCs in their seed round http://j.mp/9rC3Li

By: Will

Will — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:03:57 +0000

As with everything, it's just too convenient to lump people into categories. VCs as poor seed investors is convenient for some because they can lean on a few rich examples that everyone seems to have – even if without personal experience. Extremes are easy and help that categorization, of course. bad stories multiply much faster than most good ones.

As you say, it's a disservice to both VCs and to startups who might not look at VCs as a channel for investment. It's a much bigger problem for the startups, though.

By: Trina Hoefling

Trina Hoefling — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:02:49 +0000

Right on, Brad! I don't know why we collectively seem to be stuck in black and white, either / or, good/bad dualistic thinking. Maybe because it's easier to think binary than with complexity. Choices, at the core, involve critical thinking that is seldom binary. Thanks, once again, for being a sane and grounded voice, Brad.

By: @paulgould

@paulgould — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:13:59 +0000

Brad, just so you know.. your link to AngelList on the first line is wrong, should be angel.co and not angel.com

By: adam wexler

adam wexler — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:36:21 +0000

brad, great to see you rallying the troops

on the topic of the angel community in boulder, would you say that investors there are as inclined as the ones from the valley to invest in their own region? i know boulder has made tremendous progress over the last 5 years as a startup haven, but i imagine it still doesn't possess the wealth of resources in san fran.

(i ask from the perspective of someone who has been bootstrapping a business for a couple years from another "town" of athens, ga)