No actionable information in this rant. Why not either skip the name calling and give us a factual account of what happened naming names; or tell us what to look for to spot an asshole VC ahead of time.
People are always too afraid to air dirty laundry in public, because it might get them blackballed -- "you'll never raise money in this town again!", "you'll never get a job at a VC-backed firm", "we'll never do a deal with you again!", etc.
I can only think of one case off the top of my head where all the nasty details were revealed and all the names were named - the mid-2000s lawsuit by the epinions founders against Benchmark and August Capital, for similar 'let's wipe out the common' hijinks.
When the lawsuit became public, there was a ton of talk about how the lawsuit would ruin their careers, and they would never raise money again. But Naval Ravikant, one of the plaintiffs, seems to have done just fine. Mike Speiser, another one of the plaintiffs, also did pretty well for himself. Don't know what happened to the rest, but I'd be willing to bet they're still quite comfortably in startup land.
The consequences of naming names aren't as dire as you think they are. For the love of pete, if someone really shouldn't be funding entrepreneurs, tell us who it is.
I'm guessing this isn't really a message for HN; it's a message for ASSHOLE VC -- "I saw what you did, and you won't be in any of my deals in the future."
Or alternatively, it's a message for founders -- "I'm the kind of guy who doesn't do deals with folks like ASSHOLE VC."
That was the big lesson I took away too. For many of us who are relatively young, it's valuable to be reminded that often we're surrounded by other players whose relationships go back much further than ours do. I've found that loyalties are often a lot stronger and less obvious than you may think.
The lawyers in this situation had a clearly defined client whom they had an ethical obligation to represent zealously. I don't know any of the particulars, but let's assume their official client was the corporation, and the board, stacked with the VCs, duly voted on this course of action. The lawyers were then just doing their job properly, under this assumption, and serving their actual client, not making a calculated betrayal. The only ones responsible for the VCs' decision are the VCs.
Of course founders could and probably should have their own lawyers advise them in deals with outside investors.
A well known Palo Alto law firm I talked to last year made this point abundantly clear in early discussions re engaging them. They wouldn't represent the founders, they would represent the company. Even in those early talks they mentioned there would sometimes be conflicts of interest where it would be best the founders seek their own legal advice.
That's exactly right, and they're also doing their job right to recommend the founders get their own separate counsel. I have seen some really surprising conflicts of interest arise between founders and investors and even between founders before the corporation exists to become the official client. Everyone wants to be awesome buddies and not think about the chance of not always getting along.
Well, that might be what it's for, but that's not how it works. The Funded doesn't have the data. It's full of random meaningless flattery ("Great firm!") or random complaints ("Partners were fiddling with their blackberries during my pitch.") It has very little useful data and this is an industry where nobody wants to burn what could turn out to be an important bridge.
I must admit that I have not used it for a long time - since just after it launched. I remember there was some decent feedback on there, especially with regard to separating out the better partners from the also-rans (I used some of the advice wrt angel funds). There was also a lot of gossip. The star rating system seemed about right.
Based on what you are saying, it is very different now - which is a shame. It can only be as good as the data entered, and you would hope that entrepreneurs would not be afraid to post criticism, especially since you can remove finer details and remain anonymous.
The trouble is, you can't remain anonymous. You just had a meeting with partner X. During that meeting, he kept getting up to go to the bathroom to do lines of coke. You write, "Met with X. He kept getting up to do coke. Avoid." Guess what? Now he knows who you are.
