风投和天使之争

    在早期投资界，没有什么话题能比风险投资人和天使投资人之间的关系更能引发讨论和争议了。如今的融资环境日益多样化，他们两者到底是天敌，还是相辅相成？抑或两者都是?

    AngelList引入联合融资让这场争论变得更加复杂：天使作为牵头投资者，众筹有可能作为A轮融资，随后是风险投资。在争论哪种融资方式对于初创公司最为有利的唇枪舌剑中，极端的投资者和专家总是认为，未来的趋势是非此即彼。

    我在从事风险投资之前曾经连续创立过多家企业。鉴于这样的背景，我对联合融资的看法处于中间地带，但有些东西让我很是担心，特别是风投正在背离经过事实检验的种种策略，毫无根据地宣称种子风投预示着风险等。

    AngelList的联合融资平台是对风投模式的一种创新，但与传统企业有很多相似之处。在这种情形下，牵头的天使实际上就是微型风投，承担一名主动管理的基金经理角色，类似于风投管理有限合伙人的投资资本。这里的主要区别，也是很大的区别是，传统风投模式是依托于基金运营，而天使联合投资是基金经理依托于交易运营。天使可能在一项交易中获利，而在另一项交易中亏损。

    天使会得益于投资更多的交易以及风险的降低，但在联合投资模式下，天使与创业者之间的互动相比之前出现了显著的改变。随着有更多资金进入，同时又是一位天使在担任牵头投资人，创业者必须信赖天使。作为创业者，我会想知道这位天使是否有领投的经验。这名天使将组成多少联合投资，他/她将进行多少交易？在这样的情形下，天使投资人的风险被联合投资大幅降低，有那么多需要关注的事情，我有多少把握能赢得并保持他们的关注？另外一个非常现实的风险是热热闹闹的联合投资推高了估值，人为导致估值过高，可能妨碍未来进一步获得风投融资。

    目前看来，问题比答案要多。归根结底，我并不认为天使联合投资一定会成功或失败。事实上，我认为有些会成功，有些会失败。而那些成功的可能会转型为……风险投资人。

    天使的运作类似于微型风投，但很多风投都被一些天使投资者推崇的轻资本、广撒网的方式所吸引。资本限制加上几位“超级天使”的早期成功已经推动一些风投摆脱传统的为颠覆性创新融资的商业模式，转向一条阻力最小的路，采取大批具有资本效率的小规模投资——通常是消费者互联网或软件。不幸的是，这样过度依赖某一个行业会忽视其他行业，损害创新。赚快钱的随大溜交易并不是我们这个行业或经济所需要的。这种规避风险的方法背离了传统风投模式最擅长的领域：与创业者合作，为颠覆性创新融资。

    No topic fuels more discussion and debate within the early-stage investment community than the dynamics between VC and angel investors. Are they natural enemies or complementary players in an increasingly diverse funding ecosystem? Or both?

    AngelList's introduction of syndicates has added several new twists to this debate—the notion of angel as lead investor, the potential to crowdfund Series A rounds and implications for subsequent VC rounds. In the back-and-forth over which funding routes are most advantageous to startups, some investors and pundits are going so far as to suggest one model will flourish while the other fades.

    As a serial entrepreneur turned VC, my position on syndicates is somewhere near the middle of the spectrum—but certain aspects concern me deeply, particularly VCs who are peeling away from proven strategies, and the unfounded claims of signaling risk with VC seed investing.

    AngelList's syndicate platform is an innovation on the VC model, but one with many parallels to traditional venture. In this scenario, the lead angel is essentially a micro VC, playing the part of an active fund manager, similar to VCs managing capital invested by limited partners. The primary difference here—and it's a big one—is that the traditional VC model operates on a fund basis, while an angel syndicate has a deal-by-deal carry for fund managers. Angels can make a profit off of one deal, and a loss off another.

    Angels stand to benefit from increased access to deals and decreased risk, but the angel-entrepreneur dynamics shift dramatically from the pre-syndicate model. With more dollars in play and one angel acting as lead investor, the entrepreneur will have to take a leap of faith. As an entrepreneur, I'd want to know whether the angel has experience as a lead investor. How many syndicates will this angel form, and how many deals will he/she do? In a scenario where the angel's risk is largely mitigated by the syndicate and there are any number of shots on goal, how sure can I be of getting—and keeping—their attention? Another very real risk is artificially high valuations, inflated by an exuberant syndicate, that could all but cut off access to VC funding in future rounds.

    At this point, there are more questions than answers. Ultimately, I don't think angel syndicates will succeed or fail. Rather, I think some will succeed and others will fail. Those that succeed will probably become… VCs.

    While angels are acting as micro-VCs, there are plenty of VCs being lured by the capital-light, spray-and-pray approach favored by certain angel investors. Capital constraints, coupled with early successes for a handful of 'super angels,' have created a tendency for some VCs to move away from the storied business model of funding disruptive innovation in favor of the path of least resistance, in the form of a larger number of small, capital-efficient investments—usually consumer internet or software. Unfortunately, this overcapitalizes one sector at the expense of others, and to the detriment of innovation. Me-too deals for a quick turn is not what our industry or our economy needs. This risk-averse approach is a departure from what works best about the traditional VC model: Partnering with entrepreneurs to fund disruption.