I’m forgiving with non-native English speakers when they’re making an effort and trying to contribute something - but there is also no excuse for laziness with translation tools so easily available on the web. For example, accusing someone of defamation or breaching personal privacy are very serious allegations… please make an effort to understand the words you are using before using them.

Do I ever flame you?

Please back off…

My comment was “as asinine as OPL’s” because I was quoting him.

@OPL,

“Markus, good luck with your sales…”

What on earth are you talking about?

Mike

they are doomed to plunge into the chasm.

fools !!!

-s

Mike, can we have a Chinglish filter? These comments are so asinine I feel like I might as well be reading Digg.

If Im wrong - please indicate which funds have invested outside on a seed basis?

Either way - it would be interesting to get a view of “non-us VC’s”

Overpricing stock.
Shareholders can’t afford it.

The only company that help people get job, money, innovation is…. GOOGLE. Not yahoo or anyone else from funded companies.

It seems like this assumption is being pulled out of your behind, but please continue exhibiting your wealth of knowledge and research. You are doing a public service.

Could someone provide pointers to any further info on the businesses themselves besides the obvious - what you get by going to that domain name?

There’s a divide between the max. angels like to commit, and the minimum VC’s like to commit. You generally hear about closing that divide from the angels’ perspective (that is, formalizing networks of angels, increasing investment liquidity and opportunities to diversify, and adding deal transparency).

You hear that VCs won’t enter the equity gap because they don’t have the proper insentives to, given that they prefer potentially huge returns. But CRV has turned that conventional wisdom on its ear. And sounds like they’ve done well at that.

Looking forward to seeing if other VCs take advantage of similar opportunities to fill the equity gap.

You need to write an article about funding opportunities around the world instead of just in the US. You have a lot of people reading your blog from Europe, Australia etc - not just US.

Problem with the VC companies you cover - they dont give a “f*$k” about companies that are located outside the US. The only way they offer is if you have a developed company and the risk is very far reduced.

I dont want to work with VC’s that come in when the profit is a surety - why would you even bother ? Just get debt funding.

Cover some VC’s outside the US that actually give a shit about what other people are doing in the world.

0% corporate crooks.
0% bankruptices.
0% corporate failures.

Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers opened VC in china.

What china wants is clean air technology and clean water technology…They would throw tons on money on startup. Banks will give you money. Less risky involve.

US…There’s huge risk getting VC… You need huge returns. You lose some ownership rights. For example, Steve jobs founded Apple… Scully fired Steve Jobs.

I agree. It’s fascinating to watch this new funding concept spread as the model proves successful. For big funds like this, the amounts are so relatively small they have nothing to lose.

Typically an experienced person from the states would go to Asia to setup a team that costs him 1/10th of US rates to operate, and such companies can be successful / profitable typically in $100k - 200k.

The trouble is that even though VCs exist, what’s needed there are enough Angels.

I think VCs should consider funds such as this CSV fund for the Asian market that makes bets on experienced (US experience) veterans with development shops in Asia building the next Youtube but requiring some early stage funds to get the team organized.