AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway

Re:AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway by dschobel on Sunday September 26, 2010 @11:56PM (#1730696)

Is the story getting any coverage outside the SV echo chamber?

I'd be quite surprised if we see the issue cross over into the mainstream.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway by jogle on Monday September 27, 2010 @01:00AM (#1730790)

I read something on msnbc a couple days ago but can't find the link. Here are some from more mainstream sources than TechCrunch, though:

http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/09/24/the-daily-sta...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/maggieshiels/2010/09...

http://www.businessinsider.com/angelgate-is-overblown-2010-9

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway by razin on Monday September 27, 2010 @03:56AM (#1731038)

I'd hardly consider Business Insider to be mainstream.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AngelGate: Chris Sacca Responds To Ron Conway by TheCondor on Monday September 27, 2010 @01:38PM (#1732486)

I was going to ask this with it be limited to not just the SV echo chamber but the Techcrunch one as well.

What stood out to me the most, maybe because I'm not in SV, but the claim that ~10 "angels" were involved with 99% of the startups in SV. That just doesn't seem possible in a really healthy startup environment. I mean, there are startups that self boot-strap, there are startups that have a single owner that can fund them, there are startups that have a reputation and pedigree and go straight to institutional funding. There are also companies that stay below radar. How many software companies are we talking about in the greater SV Bay Area? 1200? 1500? And these 10 guys are in nearly all of them? Surely these are only the startups that fill in their crunchbase details or something, right?

Does nobody go outside the valley for funding?

[ Parent | on HN ]