This is getting tricky again... We now know that Ron Conway knew about the dinner beforehand. We also know that his partner did not want to attend, presumably because he knew the type of conversations that would be had. They talked and decided that David Lee should go.
To me it seems that what changed before&after the dinner, was the publicity it took, which switched Ron Conway from a 'wait&see' approach (at the very least) to the openly hostile approach we saw in the 'nuclear bomb' email.
While before this update I gave Ron the benefit of the doubt (not in small part due to pg vouching), it now seems that he was much less surprised than I thought.
My estimate that the 'nuclear' email was damage control intended to be publicised has just gone up.
To me it seems that what changed before&after the dinner, was the publicity it took, which switched Ron Conway from a 'wait&see' approach (at the very least) to the openly hostile approach we saw in the 'nuclear bomb' email.
Isn't it also possible that Ron Conway and David Lee decided David should go because they didn't know what was going to go down, and then once they knew, Ron decided to distance himself from that group?
Of course it is. Nothing at all is certain when working with so little information, which is why I mentioned probabilities.
However, we know that two such dinners took place, and that David Lee was present at both. Also if they didn't know what was going to go down, why didn't David Lee want to go in the first place?
Again, we are only talking probabilities here, there is a huge amount we certainly don't know.
Another possibility: David Lee is the leak. It may have been Ron Conway suggesting he attend to see what was going on. Even if he isn't the leak I tend to think David Lee was there simply to find out what was happening for SV Angel, not having intent to form agreements.
What's the connection between Arrington and Conway? Someone told Mike about the meeting (as he wrote, he wasn't invited). Then someone told Arrington about the content of the meeting (Mike wasn't there). Connect the dots.
It's possible that Ron Conway intended to blow it up from the beginning, including his own plant there. But as it always happens the shrapnel takes the unexpected course. Consider this a badly botched operation.
Keep in mind Michael Arrington said he talked to three different people who were at the meeting. It's possible David Lee was one of them. I have a hard time believing all Angels assembled were comfortable with the direction the meetings appeared to be taking. I think someone (possibly publicly defensive, and with a flamboyant writing style) had the bright idea to bring Angels together for mutually beneficial agreements to control market forces affecting them, but before things went very far things went public.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
I think the simplest explanation is that Conway either wasn't aware of the agenda or wasn't aware of the scope of it. That would explain his regret for Lee being there.
I admire Ron Conway for his business acumen and regard for entrepreneurs. But he's taking on a lot of needless baggage for continuing to talk about a meeting he himself did not attend, and for continuing to speak on behalf of his partner in an ambiguously denial-oriented style. "thou doth protest too much" comes to mind. The whole thing seems fishier than it probably really is because of it.
Actually, I would say that the Angelgate meetings have been happening for a long time. Conway blasted all those people in the Nuclear email, but how would he know what to say if he hadn't been to either of the last two Bin 38 meetings? Did Lee tell him what happened in the first meeting and the leak just crystallized his thoughts, triggering the nuclear email? Why didn't Conway go to the first meeting? Being an entrepreneur's guy, Conway with Lee realized when discussing whether or not to go was "damned if we do, damned if we don't, but we'll be more damned if we don't" turns out due to the leak he was wrong, and so now wants to distance himself from the organized greed, which in the open seems all the more repulsive.
Welcome to the The Collusion Room, where "you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave." I wouldn't just limit this to Angels either, the problem is knowing when to draw the line between collusion and cooperation. Where and when do VCs meet like this, and how about Fund managers? Who watches over clubs such as http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org ?
Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching.
I value the character judgment of a few people who have vouched for Conway (including pg), so i assume he's not a dishonorable man, but have no illusions -- your best interests as an entrepreneur aren't the same as the best interest of investors. Sure, they want to see you do well, but there will often be disagreements on how much to risk and how much to pay to see you get that succes.
I always say investors can get a 10% success rate and be incredibly successful. You, however, need a 100% success rate.
Yes, you need the angels, and if product/market is big enough , you'll need VCs. But don't kid yourself, investors are your 'friendly adversaries'. If you keep this in mind, and recognize the symbiotic relationship for what it is, you won't get disillusioned if thing don't exactly go your way.
What I don't quite get is... how angel investors can collude effectively. It reminds me a bit of having a 'monopoly' on advertising. I suspect there are good arguments to be made, I'd be grateful if anyone could shed light on them.
Seriously, there might be better things to discuss on HN, than the Ron Conway saga. :( Last I checked there are about 18 comments on Techcrunch on that article. Bound to be a hell lot more soon.
The previous one had 411 comments, 2000 Facebook likes, 1786 retweets on techcrunch
So where ever you hide, you are not going to miss the mails and clarification of Ron Conway.
I dont think ANYTHING of value is added through speculation/opinionating over here.
Let the guys at techcrunch do their job..we can catch up whatever is happening by googling "techcrunch Ron Conway"
:)
I'm quite enjoying it. It seems of interest to the startup world, and I personally don't twit or facebook or go directly to techcrunch if I can avoid it.
AngelGate is actual news. It may not be a story broke by CNN, or which appeals to their audience, but it involves real money, people, and laws. Apparently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is now involved. This is not some frivolous gossip story. Also, it does seem to be topical considering it's on a spin-off news forum for a site with the primary purpose of angel investing. I for one am quite interested in learning more facts about this story.
I agree any news we receive right now will have a gossip feel to it. Nobody is under oath, after all. However, I think we can learn some relevant (even if speculative) information from those closest to the situation.
I'm actually glad that this was and continues to be a big story in our world; it says something. I'm reminded of @cdixon's comment on Twitter the other day:
'One thing angelgate shows is how ethics-driven the startup world is. On Wall Street, meeting to fix prices is called "lunch."'
Several miss spellings were in the posted original RC email at TC..miss spellings that you would think RC would not make.
Are we sure that the original RC email that TC posted was real and from RC?
Things are just not matching..
But for a group of Super Angles not to know that they cannot
participate in a discussion where they suggest to collude to price fix.. tells me that I should not take any business advice from them..How about rest of HN readers?
> But for a group of Super Angles not to know that they cannot participate in a discussion where they suggest to collude to price fix.. tells me that I should not take any business advice from them
Collude if you can get away with it is bad ethical advice.
On the other hand it is consistent with the amoral (not to be confused with immoral) standards by which business may be expected to operate. And from a rational economic actor standpoint it makes a lot of sense.
The misspellings missing from the second email are easily explained by the likelihood that this email was "proofread" by several people beforehand (since it was known to be going public), whereas the other was a quick personal email with no intention of going public (until it was leaked). I believe pg mentioned that Ron would review the public emails several time with others.
Also... the 2nd email, Ron mentioned the first. So the first is real, straight from his mouth.
Last Thursday Tech Crunch published a leaked email from me to some angel investors who attended the Bin 38 dinner.
I would like to clarify some confusion from that email.
David Lee, my partner at SV Angel did not want to go the Bin 38 dinner. We talked and then agreed that he should go.
David Lee shares the same passion and satisfaction as I do in helping entrepreneurs bring their innovation to fruition and that’s why we work together and I am proud to call him a close friend and partner.
This is the last time I am going to say anything about this topic since we must focus our attention back where it belongs..with the entrepreneurs and helping them build great companies!
To me it seems that what changed before&after the dinner, was the publicity it took, which switched Ron Conway from a 'wait&see' approach (at the very least) to the openly hostile approach we saw in the 'nuclear bomb' email.
While before this update I gave Ron the benefit of the doubt (not in small part due to pg vouching), it now seems that he was much less surprised than I thought.
My estimate that the 'nuclear' email was damage control intended to be publicised has just gone up.