Hacker News Reader

Comment by manishsharan | Hacker News Reader

Isn't this like the third blog post from daniellemorril.com within the last 2 weeks making it to HN front page ?

Also -- it seems obvious that while the author has tools to crawl web sites and pull data into a CSV, it seems dubious that the author spent anytime in running a manual sanity check before presenting her findings. For example, "O'Reilly AlphaTech Ventures" and "OReilly Alpha Tech Ventures" are the same thing.

View on HN

Author here. I have presented Crunchbase data as is without any "cleaning" but I assure you I have run a sanity check on the companies involved, and emails are pouring in from founders confirming they have experienced wasted time with investors on this list. I am happy to de-dupe those two items on the list and check for others, and will continue to fix any other errors people report.

Do you think you would get a similar volume of emails if you posted a list of VCs selected at random? I suspect so. Many are called but few are chosen.

It is, and each one has been very useful, at least for some of us.

Also, she included angel groups like Angels' Forum, Keiretsu Forum and Sand Hill Angels that do not have official funds, as well as, including strategic funds like BASF, who do not have an investor or die model. Finally, she lists Ron Conway and Chris Sacca's Lowercase Capital, who are not out of dry powder.

She's not saying they're evil! She's just presenting a data point, and then some further advice on screening once you get a first meeting. The people arguing about specific entries on the list are missing the point.

Actually, she called them 'Zombies.' I guess that's not exactly calling them 'evil', but same difference.

I agree that "zombies" is good writing but suboptimal reporting, in the same sense as maybe Ron Conway really isn't investing, but if he's not taking spurious first meetings with company operators, he's not "walking among us" and thus doesn't qualify as a zombie.

Also OATV is a seed fund – they may have participated in a few series A's in the past, but probably don't deserve to be mentioned in this list. Should probably add a filter for investors that do 80%+ seed deals and just a few series A's.

Don't you think it is worthwhile for founders to know an investor used to do seed and follow on into the A round, but doesn't appear to be doing so anymore?

Renee from OATV here. OATV.com clearly articulates our investment thesis and deep-reserve model. It hasn't changed.

Perhaps, as others have pointed out, you should reconsider using Crunchbase as a reliable or up-to-date source of information. Or, at a minimum, do some supplemental fact-checking via Google.

Thanks Renee, my email is in my profile and in the post and I'd love to get more updated in on OATV's recent Series A activity

Reply on news.ycombinator.com