Chris DeVore

It is one of the ongoing mysteries of the Seattle startup community. With all of the wealth created over the years at companies such as Amazon, Expedia, Microsoft, F5 and others, why aren’t there more folks recycling their cash in startup companies?

Over the past few months, that’s been a hot topic of discussion on GeekWire. Adeo Ressi of The Founder Institute expressed his bewilderment by the sheer lack of angel investment in Seattle, noting in a GeekWire story a few months ago that “there are a lot of rich people here. So, there’s no reason why there shouldn’t be more angel investing.”

And just last week Seattle 2.0 founder Marcelo Calbucci stressed that more needs to be done to get Microsoft millionaires off the sidelines, participating in the startup community as angel investors and mentors.

Now, comes a blog post from Chris DeVore of Founder’s Co-op who  — in a little more polite language than the headline above — wonders why the people who’ve met with so much success in the Seattle tech community have chosen not to pump a portion of that money into startups versus hedge funds, real estate, foundations or wine collections.

He writes:

If I could wave a magic wand and change one thing about our local community, it would be to turn every Microsoft and Amazon alum who walked away with at least $5MM in personal net worth into an angel investor.

It is a great wish, and more needs to be done to make it happen.

We’ve had some great suggestions here at GeekWire to help light a spark. We’re toying with a new event series that could help foster additional exposure for startup companies and the angels who fund them. (Stay tuned for more on that).

One reader even suggested that we profile a relatively unknown angel investor once a month. I love the idea. But after bouncing it off a few people, I realized there just aren’t enough angels out there who would want to have their stories told.

After all, angels in Seattle –perhaps going back to the region’s Scandinavian roots — like to keep a relatively low profile.

But it is time to break some (not all) of those ties to the past, with DeVore and others helping to lead the charge. In a plea on his blog this week, DeVore writes:

Who among the many thousands of Microsoft and Amazon multimillionaires currently on the sidelines will step forward to help build the next generation of tech giants here in the Pacific Northwest? Raise your hand and I’ll do everything I can to connect you with the early-stage community here, and to share the joy I feel every day chasing big dreams about the future with the smartest and hardest-working people I’ve ever met.

Seems like it is the right time for someone or a group of people to step forward. There’s certainly opportunity brewing, and money to be made. After all, wouldn’t someone like to be the Ron Conway, Fred Wilson or Vinod Khosla of Seattle?

Related: Box.net co-founder Aaron Levie tells the insightful story of why he left Seattle for the San Francisco Bay Area. Yes, the lack investment capital played a role, but that’s not the only reason. Read the full story here.

Comments

  • Anonymous

    A related question: Who among you will ensure that there is a next generation of highly skilled Washington kids by stepping forward to contribute your fair share in taxes to fund the public education systems that benefit us all? Anyone?

    • Anonymous

      The wealthy among us already pay more taxes than anyone else and if you are referring to an income tax, the voters already told you and your ilk to pound sand on that.  The other reason being that the representatives from Seattle in Olympia will kowtow to the teachers union (and every other union) instead of putting into place the right policies that will produce educated students.  Maybe if the voters of Seattle stopped voting for the same people that keep cutting education in favor of costly and ineffective helath care programs, the $30+ billion spent each budget cycle would actually produce educated students.  Intelligent people know when to stop throwing good money after bad and that is what the voters have told lawmakers.  So stop trying to guilt the wealthy into doing something irrational.

      • Anonymous

        As a small-business owner, I make less than 1/10th a year than Steve Ballmer does, yet I pay a state income tax and he doesn’t. Meanwhile, our public school is having my first-grader and kindergartener pack out their lunch garbage to cut costs. Can you please explain to me how that is rational?

      • Anonymous

        As a small-business owner, I make less than 1/10th a year than Steve Ballmer does, yet I pay a state income tax and he doesn’t. Meanwhile, our public school is having my first-grader and kindergartener pack out their lunch garbage to cut costs. Can you please explain to me how that is rational?

        • Anonymous

          Money isn’t distributed correctly.

      • Anonymous

        As a small-business owner, I make less than 1/10th a year than Steve Ballmer does, yet I pay a state income tax and he doesn’t. Meanwhile, our public school is having my first-grader and kindergartener pack out their lunch garbage to cut costs. Can you please explain to me how that is rational?

    • Anonymous

      The wealthy among us already pay more taxes than anyone else and if you are referring to an income tax, the voters already told you and your ilk to pound sand on that.  The other reason being that the representatives from Seattle in Olympia will kowtow to the teachers union (and every other union) instead of putting into place the right policies that will produce educated students.  Maybe if the voters of Seattle stopped voting for the same people that keep cutting education in favor of costly and ineffective helath care programs, the $30+ billion spent each budget cycle would actually produce educated students.  Intelligent people know when to stop throwing good money after bad and that is what the voters have told lawmakers.  So stop trying to guilt the wealthy into doing something irrational.

  • Anonymous

    The @crashdev:twitter – @levie:twitter one-two punch is better than a double-dose of caffeine this morning! But as I sit here on my third cuppa joe, as a Seattle native I have to say this is not a city inherently lacking in generosity.  Just look at the Gates Foundation; the philanthropy in this town is awe-inspiring.  In fact, while working on raising the Alliance of Angels Seed Fund, time and again, we ran into the nouveau-tech-riche who were channeling their proceeds into charity…pretty tough to complain about that.  That said, I believe that the goal of economic development in the region– whether you’re funding a startup that could be the next Amazon, or one that could cure cancer– serves a mission much larger than IRR. Is it charity? Hell no. Could you lose your money? More than likely.  Do I think a lack of investors– or a lack of *lead* investors– is the only missing ingredient? No way. But investor education could help.  If waving a wand could help MSFT millionaires negotiate term sheets and lead deals, I’d hire that magician at my kid’s party any day.  With more DeVore’s, Entress’s, Sack’s, Sposato’s, Shapiro’s blazing a trail, here’s hoping others will follow. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Devin-Miller/100001051294818 Devin Miller

    Interesting point John on investors in Seattle liking to keep a low profile.  I found this to be very true.  Conversely, in the Valley, I found everyone and their brother was claiming to be an Angel.  They proclaim it proudly and seek out deals.  By seeking out deals these folks act as lead investors. 

    Big Thanks to guys like Chris who are very much out in the public and willing to lend their time to startups.

    • johnhcook

      In the Valley, super angels build personal brands around what they are doing and have for some time. (Also, in NYC with Fred Wilson and Boulder with Brad Feld). Perhaps that will come in Seattle with more big wins, but I think some of the folks who’ve had success building companies such as Qpass, Zillow, Isilon, Expedia, F5, Insitu, etc. could do more to raise their profiles a bit.

      That’s also a point of Box.net founder Aaron Levie who writes in an accompanying guest post  on GeekWire today: 

      “Why isn’t there a Fred Wilson of Seattle blogging and pundit-izing incessantly?” 

      Some other really interesting points about what Seattle needs in the column which you can read in full here:

      http://www.geekwire.com/2011/leave-seattle-build-boxnet

    • johnhcook

      In the Valley, super angels build personal brands around what they are doing and have for some time. (Also, in NYC with Fred Wilson and Boulder with Brad Feld). Perhaps that will come in Seattle with more big wins, but I think some of the folks who’ve had success building companies such as Qpass, Zillow, Isilon, Expedia, F5, Insitu, etc. could do more to raise their profiles a bit.

      That’s also a point of Box.net founder Aaron Levie who writes in an accompanying guest post  on GeekWire today: 

      “Why isn’t there a Fred Wilson of Seattle blogging and pundit-izing incessantly?” 

      Some other really interesting points about what Seattle needs in the column which you can read in full here:

      http://www.geekwire.com/2011/leave-seattle-build-boxnet

  • Guest

    It’s ironic, in the land of the “Seattle Seven”/liberals people are wayyyyy to conservative, stingy, and uptight (“Uptight Seattleite”- Seattle Weekly) with everything from their money to driving their cars around town (worst, most cautious drivers in the US).  People are not the same in Seattle as they are in the Bay – it’s an entirely different culture (take it from someone who has lived extensively in both places).  Just b/c Seattle has a few cornerstone large tech companies doesn’t mean it should thrive from a startup, venture cap perspevtive – b/c it doesn’t and it won’t…Box.net guys explained it appropriately in the post above – it’s not a place for early stage startups, it could be, maybe – but it’s not.  Stingy, stingy, stingy people unwilling to take risks would rather plant their gardens, talk about wine, heirloom tomatoes, and tevas…

    • Guest

      Also, Seattle – stop having such an inferiority complex.  Do you think the valley/folks there relentlessly compared themselves to some other place of innovation (prob. was not one at the time, Boston/MIT maybe…) – most likely not.  They innovated, got creative, hustled a bit (true entrepreneurs) and forged ahead not knowing what was ahead.  They weren’t always worrying about how they compared to other cities in terms of amount of money raised or how many companies had a successful exit.  Stop the comparisons – Seattle is not the bay and vice versa.  They never try comparing themselves to Seattle, why does Seattle constantly feel the need to compare itself to the bay…stop wasting your time and do something you or others feel is important and things might start happening…

  • Guest

    It’s ironic, in the land of the “Seattle Seven”/liberals people are wayyyyy to conservative, stingy, and uptight (“Uptight Seattleite”- Seattle Weekly) with everything from their money to driving their cars around town (worst, most cautious drivers in the US).  People are not the same in Seattle as they are in the Bay – it’s an entirely different culture (take it from someone who has lived extensively in both places).  Just b/c Seattle has a few cornerstone large tech companies doesn’t mean it should thrive from a startup, venture cap perspevtive – b/c it doesn’t and it won’t…Box.net guys explained it appropriately in the post above – it’s not a place for early stage startups, it could be, maybe – but it’s not.  Stingy, stingy, stingy people unwilling to take risks would rather plant their gardens, talk about wine, heirloom tomatoes, and tevas…

  • http://twitter.com/scottporad Scott Porad

    I agree that we need more angel activity.  Complaining about that fact gets a lot of press, but I don’t see how this complaining is doing much good.  

    I would be interested in hearing from, “Microsoft and Amazon alum[ni] who walked away with at least $5MM in personal net worth,” about why their not angel investors.

    Do they want to be, but there’s not an on ramp for them to get involved?  Did they try it once and get burned?  Did the idea never occur to them? Did the financial advisors tell them it was a bad idea?

    In other words, in order to improve this situation, we need to understand the problem, then we can work to fix it.

  • http://twitter.com/scottporad Scott Porad

    I agree that we need more angel activity.  Complaining about that fact gets a lot of press, but I don’t see how this complaining is doing much good.  

    I would be interested in hearing from, “Microsoft and Amazon alum[ni] who walked away with at least $5MM in personal net worth,” about why their not angel investors.

    Do they want to be, but there’s not an on ramp for them to get involved?  Did they try it once and get burned?  Did the idea never occur to them? Did the financial advisors tell them it was a bad idea?

    In other words, in order to improve this situation, we need to understand the problem, then we can work to fix it.

    • johnhcook

      Scott, thanks again for the comment. (Just responded to your other one on the Aaron Levie guest post). 

      Anyway, the questions you ask are good ones. I actually don’t see Chris DeVore’s comments (or mine) as “complaining” as much as it is a discussion. 

      The conversation, frankly, is helping us at GeekWire think of new ways that we can help solve some of the problems addressed here. A pitch event? Features of angels? Creation of an angel list?

      Isn’t part of understanding the problem, discussing it? We certainly invite people post in the comments or shoot us an email (and thanks to those who have) ideas on how to improve things. We are definitely listening.

      Believe me, GeekWire’s Rebecca Lovell is intensely interested in making sure that we address these issues as a community and move forward. (She actually has some good insights on the questions you ask from her time at NWEN and the Alliance of Angels). You’ll be hearing more about what we’re doing very soon, and I am sure Rebecca will weigh back in here too.

    • johnhcook

      Scott, thanks again for the comment. (Just responded to your other one on the Aaron Levie guest post). 

      Anyway, the questions you ask are good ones. I actually don’t see Chris DeVore’s comments (or mine) as “complaining” as much as it is a discussion. 

      The conversation, frankly, is helping us at GeekWire think of new ways that we can help solve some of the problems addressed here. A pitch event? Features of angels? Creation of an angel list?

      Isn’t part of understanding the problem, discussing it? We certainly invite people post in the comments or shoot us an email (and thanks to those who have) ideas on how to improve things. We are definitely listening.

      Believe me, GeekWire’s Rebecca Lovell is intensely interested in making sure that we address these issues as a community and move forward. (She actually has some good insights on the questions you ask from her time at NWEN and the Alliance of Angels). You’ll be hearing more about what we’re doing very soon, and I am sure Rebecca will weigh back in here too.

    • johnhcook

      Scott, thanks again for the comment. (Just responded to your other one on the Aaron Levie guest post). 

      Anyway, the questions you ask are good ones. I actually don’t see Chris DeVore’s comments (or mine) as “complaining” as much as it is a discussion. 

      The conversation, frankly, is helping us at GeekWire think of new ways that we can help solve some of the problems addressed here. A pitch event? Features of angels? Creation of an angel list?

      Isn’t part of understanding the problem, discussing it? We certainly invite people post in the comments or shoot us an email (and thanks to those who have) ideas on how to improve things. We are definitely listening.

      Believe me, GeekWire’s Rebecca Lovell is intensely interested in making sure that we address these issues as a community and move forward. (She actually has some good insights on the questions you ask from her time at NWEN and the Alliance of Angels). You’ll be hearing more about what we’re doing very soon, and I am sure Rebecca will weigh back in here too.

      • Anonymous

        Hey, sorry for the delay…was busy entrepreneur-ing. :)  I’m thinking my comment and Scott’s may have crossed in cyberspace, so don’t want to be redundant, but will chime in a couple extra points (also pertinent to Dan Rosen’s argument, below):
        WRT investors– lots more great folks with industry and entrepreneur insight have joined the investment ranks, plenty of whom I didn’t mention by name. In some cases, they haven’t wanted to be out-ed as angels. If they don’t want to hang out a shingle saying “hey I’m rich, pitch me your startup,” I’m not about to wreck that whole anonymity thing they’ve got going.  
        Also, there are absolutely smart people who can be dumb money. Particularly during my time with the Alliance of Angels, we’d see deals with crazy terms and valuations, some even backed by otherwise genius-caliber doctors.  These companies didn’t live to see another round, in part because professional angels/VC’s didn’t want to mess with the tangled web that was their cap table (granted, that may have been the last straw, but certainly not the only straw, that broke those startups’ backs).

        As for community– GeekWire has partnered with, promoted, and otherwise been a megaphone for such events as Startup Riot, Happy Go Techy, Startup Weekend EDU, Startup Day, Get A Real Job Fair, and more. Are we using this bully pulpit to shine a light on innovation and help get people out to events where you can pitch, learn, do a startup in a weekend, or join a startup?  Yep!  Can you expect more from the folks who encouraged you to Get Your Geek On at our very own launch party? Yep!  Stay tuned.  :) 

    • johnhcook

      Scott, thanks again for the comment. (Just responded to your other one on the Aaron Levie guest post). 

      Anyway, the questions you ask are good ones. I actually don’t see Chris DeVore’s comments (or mine) as “complaining” as much as it is a discussion. 

      The conversation, frankly, is helping us at GeekWire think of new ways that we can help solve some of the problems addressed here. A pitch event? Features of angels? Creation of an angel list?

      Isn’t part of understanding the problem, discussing it? We certainly invite people post in the comments or shoot us an email (and thanks to those who have) ideas on how to improve things. We are definitely listening.

      Believe me, GeekWire’s Rebecca Lovell is intensely interested in making sure that we address these issues as a community and move forward. (She actually has some good insights on the questions you ask from her time at NWEN and the Alliance of Angels). You’ll be hearing more about what we’re doing very soon, and I am sure Rebecca will weigh back in here too.

  • Guest

    Cute. One rich guy telling another rich guy what to do with his money.

    Donate to charity? Nah. 

    Donate to world causes? Nope.

    Donate to a public school? No thanks.

    Invest in a new widget site or a company that gives out badges? Yes please!

  • Guest

    Cute. One rich guy telling another rich guy what to do with his money.

    Donate to charity? Nah. 

    Donate to world causes? Nope.

    Donate to a public school? No thanks.

    Invest in a new widget site or a company that gives out badges? Yes please!

  • Guest

    Cute. One rich guy telling another rich guy what to do with his money.

    Donate to charity? Nah. 

    Donate to world causes? Nope.

    Donate to a public school? No thanks.

    Invest in a new widget site or a company that gives out badges? Yes please!

    • johnhcook

      I don’t think that is what Chris is saying here. People with money have various interests. We are blessed in Seattle that these folks support many startup projects, as I am of the belief that it makes the community a better place. 

      That said, there are plenty of startups in fields as varied as education, health, biotechnology, security, etc. that don’t get support. 

      I think it is a matter of education, and getting investors with money matched with startup projects that match their passions. I think we have plenty of both here in Seattle — they just don’t always run in the same circles. 

      Chris and others want to help make sure those folks get to know one another. Is that really a bad thing?

    • johnhcook

      I don’t think that is what Chris is saying here. People with money have various interests. We are blessed in Seattle that these folks support many startup projects, as I am of the belief that it makes the community a better place. 

      That said, there are plenty of startups in fields as varied as education, health, biotechnology, security, etc. that don’t get support. 

      I think it is a matter of education, and getting investors with money matched with startup projects that match their passions. I think we have plenty of both here in Seattle — they just don’t always run in the same circles. 

      Chris and others want to help make sure those folks get to know one another. Is that really a bad thing?

    • http://twitter.com/sib1013 Scott Blanksteen

      As a non-rich guy, I will just say this: In the end of the day, it’s the wealth created by entrepreneurial activity that gives people the means and option to donate to charity, world causes, public schools — or to buy Maseratis, thereby providing actual employment and the pride (and tax revenue) that goes therewith. And without risk capital, most of those entrepreneurial activities would be stillborn.

    • Anonymous

      Tech is one of the best spaces to create large amounts of growth quickly. Growth = jobs = taxes & spending = improvements to community. Outside of individuals greed it will continue to create jobs.

      Without funding being facilitated or showcased great companies may not be started because the funding isn’t there, this is the point they are both trying to make. With a new social / community push we can create great companies which creates jobs, taxes, revenue etc. Creating a strong community will bring more talented people and businesses from around the world, again driving more community based taxes and improvements. If they are not philanthropic, at least they can help support those who are.

    • Anonymous

      Tech is one of the best spaces to create large amounts of growth quickly. Growth = jobs = taxes & spending = improvements to community. Outside of individuals greed it will continue to create jobs.

      Without funding being facilitated or showcased great companies may not be started because the funding isn’t there, this is the point they are both trying to make. With a new social / community push we can create great companies which creates jobs, taxes, revenue etc. Creating a strong community will bring more talented people and businesses from around the world, again driving more community based taxes and improvements. If they are not philanthropic, at least they can help support those who are.

    • Anonymous

      Tech is one of the best spaces to create large amounts of growth quickly. Growth = jobs = taxes & spending = improvements to community. Outside of individuals greed it will continue to create jobs.

      Without funding being facilitated or showcased great companies may not be started because the funding isn’t there, this is the point they are both trying to make. With a new social / community push we can create great companies which creates jobs, taxes, revenue etc. Creating a strong community will bring more talented people and businesses from around the world, again driving more community based taxes and improvements. If they are not philanthropic, at least they can help support those who are.

    • Anonymous

      Tech is one of the best spaces to create large amounts of growth quickly. Growth = jobs = taxes & spending = improvements to community. Outside of individuals greed it will continue to create jobs.

      Without funding being facilitated or showcased great companies may not be started because the funding isn’t there, this is the point they are both trying to make. With a new social / community push we can create great companies which creates jobs, taxes, revenue etc. Creating a strong community will bring more talented people and businesses from around the world, again driving more community based taxes and improvements. If they are not philanthropic, at least they can help support those who are.

  • Guest

    Cute. One rich guy telling another rich guy what to do with his money.

    Donate to charity? Nah. 

    Donate to world causes? Nope.

    Donate to a public school? No thanks.

    Invest in a new widget site or a company that gives out badges? Yes please!

  • Anonymous

    It is a bit simple and naive to say “become an angel investor.”  Many try, get burned on their first couple of deals, and then walk away.  Angel investing is not for the inexperienced and undisciplined.  It requires not only knowledge about the founders and the deal, but also about the marketplace, deal terms, etc.  The rise of angel groups, like the Alliance of Angels, allows serious angel investors to work as a group with their peers, with a dramatically better success record.

  • Startup Advocate

    http://www.allianceofangels.com/investors.aspx

    What about this group? One doesn’t “have” to be in the Valley to get funded or become successful.

  • Bubba

    Why no modern angels in Seattle?!  Because they stumbled upon their wealth . . .or they are happy pining away while their spouse plans the 4th reno of their summer “home”

  • Dave_ML

    Part of the problem is the lack of compelling opportunities in spaces similar to those where people made their money, which in Seattle is often going to be infrastructure software, mobile, enterprise IT and other spaces. You need a match of interesting ideas that are appealing to those with capital. In Silicon Valley, the match doesn’t matter as much because SV has people who have made money in all spaces. In smaller markets, that match becomes critical. 

     A lot of people in Seattle remember getting burnt by me-too consumer plays in the .com boom, and see the same thing in this boom. Seattle is almost always going to be being the Silicon Valley curve in consumer web plays, but that seems to be where founders want to raise money.  Even Amazon, the most successful consumer facing company in Seattle, is not a web play it is an amazingly successful retailer so many Amazon people look at consumer web companies with great skepticism.

    It also seems to require work to find interesting companies that most angels don’t want to put in. AoA is part of the answer, but there are some investors who that is not the right fit for.

  • http://www.jrotech.com/ Jeff Rodenburg

    I love Chris’s sentiment here — he’s saying let’s stop effing around and put some bets on the table. And trying to bring those potential investors into the fold that may need assistance — it’s a great suggestion, and Andy and Chris are about the best help an angel investor in Seattle could get.

    Given our history as a technology center, what a sad state of affairs. It’s a reflection of values and confidence in the area to produce more winners going forward (basically, a lack thereof.)  Seriously, where’s the cajones?

  • MC

    I worked for a high tech startup in the Midwest and helped the two founders make over $400 million each when it was later acquired by a global 500 company. As a member of the executive team, I had the opportunity to financially experience, albeit on a much smaller scale, the fruit of turning a startup into a market leader. A few years before the exit, I asked both founders if they would back me in my own venture someday. Both said yes. Four years later, after spending months trying to get them to invest $200K each in my new company, I am lucky if they even give me the courtesy of a return phone call. Big money changes people and founders some times forget the teams that helped them get there. Lots of Seattle’s out there.

  • Anonymous

    It’s definitely a chicken and egg problem, but more entrepreneurs has to happen first. Seattle already has enough investors that will put their money into promising, worthy startups. I guess I don’t see a problem with lack of angels because I have yet to meet a founder with a worthy product who can’t get funding.

    More investors doesn’t necessarily = more entrepreneurs, but more entrepreneurs = more investors. 

  • Anonymous

    It’s definitely a chicken and egg problem, but more entrepreneurs has to happen first. Seattle already has enough investors that will put their money into promising, worthy startups. I guess I don’t see a problem with lack of angels because I have yet to meet a founder with a worthy product who can’t get funding.

    More investors doesn’t necessarily = more entrepreneurs, but more entrepreneurs = more investors. 

  • Anonymous

    It’s definitely a chicken and egg problem, but more entrepreneurs has to happen first. Seattle already has enough investors that will put their money into promising, worthy startups. I guess I don’t see a problem with lack of angels because I have yet to meet a founder with a worthy product who can’t get funding.

    More investors doesn’t necessarily = more entrepreneurs, but more entrepreneurs = more investors. 

  • Anonymous

    It’s definitely a chicken and egg problem, but more entrepreneurs has to happen first. Seattle already has enough investors that will put their money into promising, worthy startups. I guess I don’t see a problem with lack of angels because I have yet to meet a founder with a worthy product who can’t get funding.

    More investors doesn’t necessarily = more entrepreneurs, but more entrepreneurs = more investors. 

  • anony

    Many of the folks who got wealthy from MSFT, AMZN, etc. aren’t really into the entrepreneurial thing. Those just aren’t that type of companies. You succeed there by being good with Jeff/Steve, and working well with the machine. make investment decisions on your own? do something risky? terrifying.

    it’d be great if some angels stepped up who were really passionate about building new companies. and that had nothing to do with these angel groups (seriously, what % of founders haven’t found alliance of angels to be amateurish and a tremendous waste of time?)

    the deal flow would be great – good folks would seek them out, if only for feedback, advice, and connections.

    all they need to do is put up their hand a bit. oh, and don’t go on and on about crazy valuations. founders have heard it before, and it gives a bad impression. makes you sound nervous, lame, and not someone who could actually back a company through thick and thin.

  • Rob H

    We need to redefine what an Angel investor because the amount of cash required to start a business has fallen so dramatically.  10 young professionals putting up $20k a piece can launch 4 consumer web/mobile businesses in one year.  These businesses don’t have to be the best thing you’ve never seen, they can be like Uber or TaskRabbit…

    • Ldodson

      What do you define as ‘young professional’?  Most of them don’t have $20K sitting around that can be put into a risky venture. 

Job Listings on GeekWork