coleslawfail

If only the Onion knew the Valley, this would be a great headline:

Vinod Khosla: Be Wary of “Stupid Advice”

that's like saying:

Donald Trump: Be Wary of "Gold Diggers"

How long ago? He's been at this almost 30 years. He doesn't need the money. Now it's all about him. Martin's Beach is the symptom of the disease.

90% of the time Vinod Khosla pulls numbers out of his ass.

It's amazing really how much this guy subs the press. He acts as the entrepreneur's friend when the truth in the Valley is the exact opposite.

Beware.

Repeating as public service announcement of what folks in the know tell each other:

Vinod has a very negative reputation in the Valley. He used to be known as the biggest anti-founder VC when he was at Kleiner. He'd come in, use sharp elbows to push founders around and out, then companies would crumble. He's learned but not enough.

His new marketing of himself has helped (as has Rabois), but you can't change who he is. When given a chance, he'll take advantage of early stage startups. That's why you don't see many companies he's made. And he's been at it a long time - 27 years! He gets in the way because it's all about him and his huge, insatiable ego. He's much more old school VC in that way - but in the Tom Perkins vein, not Don Valentine. It's his way because it's his money.

The only way to keep Vinod honest is to get other investors. If he's your lead, the knife isn't far from your back.

It's exactly the principle. If VK won, many many others would push for the same and soon it's no longer one little beach but many, many miles.

No one here is evil. VCs have a very important role to play in the startup ecosystem. Their job is to produce significant returns to their LPs. If you can't deliver that, then you shouldn't have taken their money.

It should. He pushes around the little people. That's first time founders and especially those not connected in the Valley.

This is the time I need to pop up every so often. Vinod has a very negative reputation in the Valley. He used to be known as the biggest anti-founder VC when he was at Kleiner. He'd come in, use sharp elbows to push founders around and out, then companies would crumble. He's learned but not enough.

His new marketing of himself has helped (as has Rabois), but you can't change who he is. When given a chance, he'll take advantage of early stage startups. That's why you don't see many companies he's made. And he's been at it a long time - 27 years! He gets in the way because it's all about him and his huge, insatiable ego. He's much more old school VC in that way - but in the Tom Perkins vein, not Don Valentine. It's his way because it's his money.

The only way to keep Vinod honest is to get other investors. If he's your lead, the knife isn't far from your back.

You do realize that Vinod has been at this for a long time. And his bad reputation is based on that long history. So why make definitive claims based on six months of data?

Moreover, above you justify the insane terms for those founders. You are doing them a disservice on some false belief they can't get funding. If they build something valuable, they will be fundable. Just cause KV jumps in early doesn't entitle KV to be bullies. Vinod has often been a bully. Being early doesn't justify that noxious behavior and his reputation among those who know suffers because of it.

You've already ignored my questions about specific examples.

Keith, you are either getting false information from your partners or willfully misleading here. I prefer the former interpretation since I know for a fact this behavior exists at KV and specifically with Vinod leading the push. That's where the Bad Vinod reputation comes from and where people know to stay away.

With how much liquity floats around today, there's no such thing as too risky. No, Vinod jumps in early exactly to maximize leverage and over the founders and other investors. Why not simply treat them like any other seed? Then leverage over time with pro rata rights? As an angel, did you ever require insane positioning? And angel investing, as you know, is pretty risky. Seriously, two seats, take a step back see that you are justifying a terrible position for founders right out if the box, most especially when they take the options pool from their shares as well. You talk like it's charity when it's robbery, and then of course Vinod's ego runs wild on them.

I note here you keep failing to answer my questions. Bad Vinod is real and it's not just the experiments. With first time founders, the word is to be very careful with KV and many choose to avoid altogether. New founders, less connected in the Valley, are especially vulnerable.

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.

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.

And as someone knows the word has gotten out about Vinod must actively combat that reputation.

I wish you luck. Good Vinod can be as fine a partner as any, I'm sure. It's just the history of Bad Vinod, and how he has treated founders, that holds the firm back. His partners end up more as minions than a check on his ego.