I didn't say he's a bad VC. I'm sure his LPs love him.

He's just not who he markets himself as. It's not about you and your company. It's about him.

As for YC, they have what, 400 companies? For a guy who is supposedly (self-proclaimed) so founder friendly, and has $3B in funds, not one big YC company has taken money from him?

Your proof is not how the Valley works, in my view. They know and so they steer clear. That's the glaring proof. Good companies stay away until it's growth equity. Heck, look at Square. They gave Khosla a board seat as part of a huge valuation. He certainly didnt get that company off the ground.

I know of a non-YC company which did take money from Khosla and had a lot of good things to say about them, actually, but I wouldn't generalize from a single data point.

False. KV led Square's Series A and is the largest institutional share holder in the company (by a large margin).

Heh, seriously? I'm sure the valuation he gave Jack has nothing at all to do with it. Jack didnt need Vinod, big difference. Square would be Square without Vinod.

KV offered substantially less of a valuation than other firms to lead the Series A.

And control provisions?

Jack was never going to see Bad Vinod. And he was never going to give up enough equity/control to let Vinod's ego run wild.

KV asks for less control provisions than other comparable funds. Indeed, we rarely even require a Board seat. Most often, the founder persuades us to accept one.

Or in the case of "experiments" KV insists on two seats and takes the option pool from founders at the seed stage.

I get why you are presenting the rosiest picture, but at least be honest that Bad Vinod exists and is pernicious for the firm and many early founders.

These "experiments" are normally companies that no other fund on the planet would finance, as they are extraordinarily risky. In those cases, KV does expect greater equity (due to risk and the fact that nobody else will support the company) than a standard seed or Series A. Would you prefer we just decline to fund them like every fund?

With how much liquity floats around today, there's no such thing as too risky. No, Vinod jumps in early exactly to maximize leverage and over the founders and other investors. Why not simply treat them like any other seed? Then leverage over time with pro rata rights? As an angel, did you ever require insane positioning? And angel investing, as you know, is pretty risky. Seriously, two seats, take a step back see that you are justifying a terrible position for founders right out if the box, most especially when they take the options pool from their shares as well. You talk like it's charity when it's robbery, and then of course Vinod's ego runs wild on them.

I note here you keep failing to answer my questions. Bad Vinod is real and it's not just the experiments. With first time founders, the word is to be very careful with KV and many choose to avoid altogether. New founders, less connected in the Valley, are especially vulnerable.

Completely inaccurate. Many of the companies literally cannot be financed by anyone, with the possible exception of Founders Fund. Moreover, it would be an extraordinary case where we would even ask for Board seats like that. In fact, we would more often then not prefer to avoid Board seats entirely. As a technical matter, you cannot increase your ownership % by investing via pro rata rights, just preserve it.

Keith, you are either getting false information from your partners or willfully misleading here. I prefer the former interpretation since I know for a fact this behavior exists at KV and specifically with Vinod leading the push. That's where the Bad Vinod reputation comes from and where people know to stay away.

I have witnessed a sufficient number of pitches in the last six months to opine from my own vantage point. KV invests in many companies that no other VC in the US will invest in. We also support companies that raised money earlier under different circumstances that nobody else will invest in. (I can't address any historical examples without you guiding me to a particular company, etc.)

You do realize that Vinod has been at this for a long time. And his bad reputation is based on that long history. So why make definitive claims based on six months of data?

Moreover, above you justify the insane terms for those founders. You are doing them a disservice on some false belief they can't get funding. If they build something valuable, they will be fundable. Just cause KV jumps in early doesn't entitle KV to be bullies. Vinod has often been a bully. Being early doesn't justify that noxious behavior and his reputation among those who know suffers because of it.

You've already ignored my questions about specific examples.