[hckr_news]

VCs shouldn’t be the gatekeepers to capital. The game is rigged. Who gets funding is decided by arbitrary metrics, inherent biases, and already established networks. Personally I’m planning on bootstrapping my own business and don’t plan on asking a VC for a hand.

[mad182]

Of course they should. Investors have every right to choose where to invest however they want, it's their money and nobody is entitled to it.

[hckr_news]

Technically it's not their individual money. VC money is typically a pool of money collected from wealthy individuals and funds.

[thinkindie]

The very point of the article, I guess, is pointing out those VCs that rode the wave around BLM topics just for the sake of their own public image without even delivering anything close to their pledge.

[callalex]

Just because some rich a-hole tweets and blogs something doesn’t mean that anybody actually believes them. In fact, most people have a decent BS detector, see these fluff statements for what they are, roll their eyes, and move on with their life.

[TedDoesntTalk]

If it's their private capital, why shouldn't they be their own gatekeepers?

[manaman]

Did you read the linked TechCrunch article and how some of the VCs mentioned wanted to help some demographics etc.?

[TedDoesntTalk]

Yes, I did. But that does not mean they will invest in startups which they believe will bring negative returns or that don't otherwise suit their portfolio.

[PeterisP]

It's not their private capital - most VCs are investing the funds of 'limited partners' such as pension funds, university endowments, etc. So in essence VCs are gatekeepers which make decisions regarding startups who will or wil not get access to someone else's money.

[lightgreen]

Pension funds are not allowed to invest in VC.

But anyway, it does not change the fact that it’s not public money, it’s money belonging to someone and that someone trusted VC to make decisions be motivated by capital gain not by social justice and fairness.

[cowpig]

I think the comment you replied to was probably framed from different perspectives:

Parent assumes "we should do what is best for the common good"

Your reply assumes "we should do whatever best protects individual liberties"