All of this data is from Crunchbase, and the column D "Date of Most Recent Series A Investment" indicates they participated in the round though they might not have lead.
You hold up "all this data is from Crunchbase" like it's a shield, and basically say the same about your Alexa web numbers for YC start-ups - don't blame me, blame my methodology!
Why not try and come up with a more robust method than pouring over CrunchBase and appending "Na ni na ni boo boo VCs, if this data is wrong, contact me,"
It's not a shield, it's a sign. I'm working with limited public data trying to create something new and I'm working on improving it but it takes time - making this post alone was a labor of love and I realize this kind of analysis still has a long way to go. One of the best ways to get data to make these lists better has been to publish what is available and get feedback on what is wrong, where to look, who to ask etc.
When I make these posts suddenly people start returning my emails requesting data.
It also occurs to me that we have no problem judging and speculating about startups based on nothing more than a TechCrunch post with extremely limited public data. It's funny that it is so much less socially acceptable to do this with investors. Maybe I can change that.
Going public saying "don't work with these funds" and then telling them you'll take them off the s!!t list when they share their private data with you sounds an awful lot like what in other walks of life people would call extortion.
I have a list of everyone who has paid their credit card bills in the last several months (the list only covers people who live in my apartment.) You are not on it. Is it okay if I put up a public website calling you a deadbeat? If you don't want to be on it, just send me a copy of your bank statements.
My firm (Neu Venture Capital) is on the list, despite doing a Series A a few months ago, a Series B last month, and three seed deals in the last six months. O'Reilly Alphatech is on there, despite raising a $85 million Fund III six months ago. Quotidian is doing deals, Chris Sacca is doing deals, etc. Crunchbase data is incomplete. Saying people have done something based on it is relatively safe; saying people have not done something based on it is scurrilous.
[edit: the second paragraph is a hyperbolic analogy. I don't have such a list and I wouldn't use it that way if I did. That was my point, that it would be wrong to make that sort of implication based on data you know is incomplete.]
To be completely clear, I did not say in my post that founders should not work with these investors. I said it might be a waste of time to pitch them on a Series A, since it doesn't appear from publicly available data that they are doing those sorts of deals lately, and that founders should proceed accordingly.
I understand your frustration, startups used to cringe at mentions in the press but have come to understand that the world is interested in how they work, what they do, who they are and whether or not they create value. Investors have had remarkably less written about them and if they are not publicly sharing the fact they are helping founders get Series A deals done I hardly see why I shouldn't point it out, and create an incentive for greater transparency.
I will work to investigate more deeply and create a more useful data set.
Comparing this to extortion is quite a bit of hyperbole. You're talking about one journalist, publishing a list on a website... not a gang of armed thugs standing in your store going "this sure is a nice shop, would be a real cryin' shame if sumthin were to happen to it..."
Is dmor asking for money, or trying to strong arm anyone into doing anything? No, dmor is just reporting based on the information she has available. That it might be incomplete or inaccurate is worthy of pointing out, but it's a HUGE stretch to invoke an analogy to extortion.
dmor stands to profit with the list if some VCs send non-public data to her to get them off the list. That's extortion. She could become the Verisign of VC business. dmor approved VC list.
Oh? Then please share your definition, as I'm working off the basis that it's something like this[1]:
Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection.
"...but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant." [1]
Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.
So we've gone from talking about "extortion", a well known criminal offense with an everyday, commonplace meaning, to quibbling about an alternate definition of "exaction" which may sometimes be used synonymously with "extortion". If you meant to specifically talk about "exaction" then why not say so in the first place?
And in either case, I stand by my assertion that referring to dmor's article as such is a tremendous exercise in hyperbole.
> I have a list of everyone who has paid their credit card bills in the last several months (the list only covers people who live in my apartment.) You are not on it. Is it okay if I put up a public website calling you a deadbeat? If you don't want to be on it, just send me a copy of your bank statements.
EXTREMELY uncalled for, petty, and potentially libelous. If this was not just a 'random example' and doesn't relate to Danielle herself....then this is some bullshit.
I don't know you, nor know your fund, but as an entrepreneur reading this, I would never trust you in a million years. Personally, I would steer clear of you and your fund, for fear of you leaking personal information about me when you get pissed.
If this is indeed what you meant, and were specifically talking about Danielle...not cool. Not cool at all.
But...truthfully, I am glad that you did, because we all need to know which VCs to steer clear of. You just cemented yourself (and your fund) on that list, as far as I am concerned.
Edit 1: To be clear, I am not sure if you mean the list covers people in an apartment building you (or your fund) owns - or just your roommates that live with you. I assumed it was something like the former. If it was the latter, and you were just using it as an example, then I stand corrected. If it was the former...then what I said still applies.
I think the poster was being sarcastic? E.g. "Is this ok? Because this is what you're doing, and it's obviously not ok, and you'd never agree that it was if framed in this way."
It also occurs to me that we have no problem judging and speculating about startups based on nothing more than a TechCrunch post with extremely limited public data. It's funny that it is so much less socially acceptable to do this with investors. Maybe I can change that.
