[coleslawfail]

I didn't say he's a bad VC. I'm sure his LPs love him.

He's just not who he markets himself as. It's not about you and your company. It's about him.

As for YC, they have what, 400 companies? For a guy who is supposedly (self-proclaimed) so founder friendly, and has $3B in funds, not one big YC company has taken money from him?

Your proof is not how the Valley works, in my view. They know and so they steer clear. That's the glaring proof. Good companies stay away until it's growth equity. Heck, look at Square. They gave Khosla a board seat as part of a huge valuation. He certainly didnt get that company off the ground.

[rdl]

I know of a non-YC company which did take money from Khosla and had a lot of good things to say about them, actually, but I wouldn't generalize from a single data point.

[keithrabois]

False. KV led Square's Series A and is the largest institutional share holder in the company (by a large margin).

[coleslawfail]

Heh, seriously? I'm sure the valuation he gave Jack has nothing at all to do with it. Jack didnt need Vinod, big difference. Square would be Square without Vinod.

[keithrabois]

KV offered substantially less of a valuation than other firms to lead the Series A.

[coleslawfail]

And control provisions?

Jack was never going to see Bad Vinod. And he was never going to give up enough equity/control to let Vinod's ego run wild.

[keithrabois]

KV asks for less control provisions than other comparable funds. Indeed, we rarely even require a Board seat. Most often, the founder persuades us to accept one.

[coleslawfail]

Or in the case of "experiments" KV insists on two seats and takes the option pool from founders at the seed stage.

I get why you are presenting the rosiest picture, but at least be honest that Bad Vinod exists and is pernicious for the firm and many early founders.