We Got Sad Angels and Mad Angels, But Not So Many Glad Angels After Boston Angel Dinner

AngelGate East it isn’t. Everyone seems to agree on that. But that is where the unanimity stops, at least if you are following the debate playing out on venture capitalist Rob Go’s blog about a Boston area angel and seed-stage investor dinner last week. Go’s post—“Sad Observations From a Boston Angel Dinner“—drew the ire of at least two attendees, Lead Dog Ventures’ John Landry and Steve Kane, another angel who is also CEO of Full Circle Media. Landry and Kane both posted some heartfelt responses.

Taken as a whole, the exchange at least shines a light on some opinions in the area about Boston angels—whether they are right or not, is another matter. I encourage you to read the full debate on Go’s blog. But here are some snippets from his post from Thursday, the day after the dinner, and the comments it drew to whet your appetite ahead of Thanksgiving.

From Go, co-founder and partner at micro-VC firm NextView Ventures, who is now trying to raise a seed fund himself (emphasis his):

“The conversation was far too lame…But here’s the really SAD thing about this discussion. Much of the conversation was so DEFENSIVE – e.g.:

“How do we protect ourselves from getting crammed down by VC’s?”

“How do we make money when the potential for blockbuster outcomes are low?”

“How do we invest when it’s so frothy?”

Go continued a bit later:

A lot of time was spent belaboring the point that venture capital is so challenging as an asset class. The mean return of venture was quoted several times.

Guess what, I don’t care. We are not an index fund, and our goal is not to be average. I want to spend time figuring out a way to invest in and help build a disproportionate % of the extraordinary companies. Instead, I heard a lot more complaining about how to make more money in non-extraordinairy deals.

Go, who declined to comment for this post, saying he preferred to reply in writing in his comment thread, as he has been doing, might have left himself open to criticism with this line: “And maybe I’m just too young and naive, but I actually think that as a seed investor, I do have the chance to invest in the transformative businesses of tomorrow.”

Among those weighing in on Go’s comment stream was Dharmesh Shah,

Author: Robert Buderi

Bob is Xconomy's founder and chairman. He is one of the country's foremost journalists covering business and technology. As a noted author and magazine editor, he is a sought-after commentator on innovation and global competitiveness. Before taking his most recent position as a research fellow in MIT's Center for International Studies, Bob served as Editor in Chief of MIT's Technology Review, then a 10-times-a-year publication with a circulation of 315,000. Bob led the magazine to numerous editorial and design awards and oversaw its expansion into three foreign editions, electronic newsletters, and highly successful conferences. As BusinessWeek's technology editor, he shared in the 1992 National Magazine Award for The Quality Imperative. Bob is the author of four books about technology and innovation. Naval Innovation for the 21st Century (2013) is a post-Cold War account of the Office of Naval Research. Guanxi (2006) focuses on Microsoft's Beijing research lab as a metaphor for global competitiveness. Engines of Tomorrow (2000) describes the evolution of corporate research. The Invention That Changed the World (1996) covered a secret lab at MIT during WWII. Bob served on the Council on Competitiveness-sponsored National Innovation Initiative and is an advisor to the Draper Prize Nominating Committee. He has been a regular guest of CNBC's Strategy Session and has spoken about innovation at many venues, including the Business Council, Amazon, eBay, Google, IBM, and Microsoft.