They don't call it "Russian money" or "Milner money" or "Soviet money" or any other epithet. They call it "Russian mafia money".

And from what I've seen of it SiliconValley is not much prone to that. So why is it different with Milner?

So morally the situation is not as simple as your comment implies.

Makes all you VCs and Angels in the Valley seem like dogs fighting over a doggie biscuit -- or in this case, the looted flesh and bones of the Russian people.

I greatly respect and admire you pg, and god knows you're far more intelligent than I am, but surely you can't be so naive as to think that Milner is doing what he is doing out of some altruism for founders?

He is spending outlandish amounts on startups for the same reason Abramovich spends hundreds of millions on yachts, why the Sultan of Brunei spends millions on cars, and why the Saudi princes spend millions on trips to the Riviera. Because he never worked hard for the money, and so he doesn't care about throwing it around.

When a man works hard, he is loathe to spend it carelessly, because he knows the sacrifice in time and effort it took to acquire the money. In the words of the great Milton Friedman: "Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own". This applies not only to government officials but to the criminal element as well, from hoodlums to ponzi schemers and everything in between.

People like Milner and others associated with Russian oligarchs spend lavishly because the money they have came with no sacrifice on their part. The sacrifice came from all those miners working in subzero temperatures in the Kazakh steppe for kopeks a day, their bodies broken down prematurely, with the share of wealth that was promised to them stolen away. And instead of those who betrayed them being brought to justice, they instead depart to the West where they are greeted with applause by those who mistake cunningness with intelligence.

pg didn't say or imply that. If you read what he's written about investing (e.g., http://paulgraham.com/future.html, http://paulgraham.com/control.html), you'll see there's a much simpler explanation: pg thinks being founder-friendly is a good (i.e., profitable) investment strategy.

(In this particular case it an investment strategy, so your theory doesn't apply either).

I don't know Yuri - you do.

He may as well be the only honest Russian oligarch (or a front for the only honest Russian oligarch).

But what GP posted is the state of affairs everywhere in eastern block and by far the norm.

Thus you must understand if people think less of you because of your associates. It is an prejudice but a well founded one.

In the end it won't matter anyway. But this is the way things work. I believe I read somewhere that yourself are of Russian ancestry? If so I believe you should be familiar with long tradition of tyranny of the few in Russia.

Pg it~s time yo returm the $$$$ back you sold you sole and sold out Nuff Said

Much of the authenticity that comes through in your essays is based on being truly committed to the things you talk about. They are often controversial and authoritative (in a good way), but the possible discrepancy between what you say and what you do could easily undermine that authenticity.

Saying that other VCs do not care where their money comes from, does not make sense here. They are not judged as authorities on topics you write about.

Do you disagree with any of these points?

- You can use the profits from investing tainted money for further investments, but the money still stinks.

- The money that came from DST's partners is tainted.

It's probably going to be hard to get a bead on Usmanov. He's a CIS state extractive industry billionaire with close ties to Gazprom, itself an instrument of the security state. That's unsettling. But then, it creates a huge incentive for people to villify him.

After finding out more about Milner, I am now more convinced that he is not at all the "robber baron" Al Capone type, but a genuine businessman who is both lucky and smart.

Wrote this just to explain the possible reasons behind the initial worry, being myself from the former USSR. I think this also explains why Milner cares about establishing a reputation in the Silicon Valley as opposed to being completely aloof to what other people think.

Al Capone wasn't a robber baron. He was a criminal entrepreneur. The robber barons have universities, foundations, and financial institutions named after them. The distinction between mobsters and robber barons is germane.

Why is picking correct friends wrong all of a sudden?

> buying all the television stations

Surely you mean buying television stations from one of the most vile and controlling governments in the history of the world.

And yes, when the TV stations are bought by companies that are effectively instruments of the state: that's a bad thing. The ruling party shouldn't buy TV stations.

Your beef isn't with me, though. Re-read this thread. I'm hardly the most cynical person here. I can sum my take on it up this way: I'd like to believe I wouldn't accept Milner money, even if I needed it; at the same time, people I consider friends have accepted it, and I don't think less of them for it.

As you can probably tell, I have little patience for mediocrity and "beta" strategies.

Reaching for power with integrity has its own set of rewards. Credibility for one.

People with attitudes like yours are destined to be used and discarded. Because a man of true power knows not to trust such and also knows that using the same standards on people that they use themselves is not amoral.

Superficial achievements are worthless to me. Therefore I believe that only integrity, wit, boldness and favor of Fortune will breed true glory.

I suspect that the influence of growing up surrounded by cultured Russians, as few of them as they were in Soviet Times is why he always stands a little bit disconnected from the crowd.

The air of Russian culture is gentle but always restless.

Russia is a land of big crowds but the intelligent among that people always desire to be a little bit aloof, if not in solitude.

As for his character, I don't think he is picked on anymore than Donald Trump. I reserve the right to make jokes about both of them.

His 100M home is probably just another investment. He had bought a part of California state, tiny but pretty impressive one. He can also live in his investment which is a bonus.

In USA, you buy better education, better health care, better neighbours, different social circle, better leisure, better future - you buy all that with money. You didn't buy these with money in USSR. His parents had all this because of their status, not because of their high wages. You could only put your money in useless and overpriced things.

If you don't care, you can live anywhere. Might as well invest in some expensive property.

So I will offer my clarification here.

This notion, that somehow in Eastern Block everybody had their basic needs covered in an egalitarian fashion while in Western Capitalism, to get any kind of (fair?) treatment one better be lined with cash is sorely mistaken.

In reality Eastern Block was very much as your average 1% > 99% scenario. The ruling elite (Cream of various Party organization and their relatives) had it all (doctors, money, travel, education,...).

If an unprivileged person wanted some of the services that were reserved for the Party elite - one would have to pay bribes all the way to destination.

Average folk didn't get any meaningful service level on security, education, health,...

So basically the only difference between East and West is/was that in West you don't have as high probability of being imprisoned/killed/have property confiscated while trying to go about doing business.

Furthermore in regards to Yuri - his parents were obviously well liked by the regime (high, excellent positions) which enabled them lucrative careers and lifestyles.

In Soviet Russia - you didn't get to travel round the world and do business - unless Regime could be certain that you can be trusted (e.g. are a part of the system).

p.s.: For reference check Northern Korea, whats going on there was pretty much the golden standard for socialist regimes.

More specifically: that he might not care about wealth as something one buys with money.

We are talking extremely corrupt societies here. Saying that one does not need money at all - would imply that this someone is a member of top of the top of a corrupt regime, thus having anything one would desire available at mere whim (due to sheer terror one's position instills in others).

But for everybody else - money (or another medium of exchange) is essential to get basic services or indeed keep ones liberty or life intact.

What you are saying is that Gang Lords have no need for money, since they will get everything they desire on a whim, while civil people need to trade and barter to get goods and services that they require.

Thus you are painting Yuri as an ascet who deals with insane amounts of money out of sheer joy of helping rich Russian magnates increase their holdings. However according to you he has no other (especially) material goals for himself.

I don't say he is an ascet. I'm just saying that he isn't motivated by being able to buy a huge house or a shiny car. And he probably wasn't, never in his life. They just come organically because of other, real things he achieve.

What are his motives? Beats me. He may be after a better high, better orgasm, fast cars, eternal life, global domination. Or he may just want to live a tranquil life with Jane Average and make babies and peacefully pass away.

Either way it certainly cannot be inferred from this article.

But comparing Yuri Milner to Perelman is interesting in an ingenious kind of way.

Perelman and Milner are from two completely different faces of Russia. And I'd wager that Perelman's disenchantment has a lot more to do with people like Milner than vice versa.

Perelman's disenchantment is caused by his mathematical institute stupid old professors who didn't care about math as a science (i.e. way to figure out new things), only focused on art of reiterating same things over and over again. Which led him to think that the official math scientific community is dead. He said it in interviews.

It does not seem to have anything with "people like Milner".