Thread by @mathewpregasen, Recently, someone brought to my attention a new website named VCGuides run [...]

Recently, someone brought to my attention a new website named VCGuides run by @vcg_official, whose actual operator is apparently a stealth startup. The pitch is that founders can rate individual VC's on their experiences with them. This is a thread why this shouldn't exist [1/15]

I want to come from a place of constructive criticism, but I also re-wrote this thread about 5 times since I am appalled something like this exists. I understand there are good intentions at play, but it also seems to rest on this assumption that VCs/angels aren't also ppl [2/15]

I understand the stereotypical VC is some rich 45 yr old guy on Sand Hill Road drinking a Latte w/ a Patagonia. So the idea of having a website where people could post honest reviews of famous powerful VC's sounds ok in theory esp if it provides honest guidance to founders [3/15]

This isn't reality. There are plenty of just-graduated 22 yr olds who join a fund as a junior analyst and are learning the ropes of building a career, and this gives founders a platform to attack and drunk on people w/ hostility w/ zero recourse since reviews are anonymous [4/15]

This isn't conjecture, it's already happening. Great people like @jmj and @DStrachman getting great reviews, as they should, but I have seen founders call certain investors "socially awkward" or "stupid". One review called someone a "cunt". One review was so bloody sexist [5/15]

Guess what? Socially awkward people usually feel insecure about being called socially awkward. How would you feel if you are just a 23 yr old who took a job in VC, and now the whole niche you operate in knows you as "The socially awkward weird guy from XYZ Ventures" [6/15]

VC is an industry that thrives on reputation, and some of this shit could be career ending. VCGuides haphazardly installed an upvotes button, but allows you to add infinite upvotes. I added 10 upvotes to one of @DStrachman's 10s to demonstrate. This is so dangerous [7/15]

I've been made aware of a post that targeted a junior investor where someone has purposely upvoted it so many times to create the facade of consensus. How would you feel if you were called grossly incompetent w/ 100+ upvotes? Readers don't know the upvote button is broken [8/15]

And guess what? That analyst is considering changing roles now due to a hate post that I know is 100% false. They aren't a MP! They aren't a billionaire lounging in Calabasas! They are people coming from the same backgrounds that the founders like I am from. People. [9/15]

I've a strongly held view that anonymous reviews targeting specific people is dangerous if the editorial board is non-existent. So unless VCGuides thinks calling someone a "cunt" is ok, I am probably right in assuming they don't moderate shit. Out of concern, I dm'd them [10/15]

I was given the reply they aren't operating this weekend since RBG's tragic passing. I'd usually respect that, but you cannot run a website like this and also absolve yourself of editorial responsibility. I've been ignored since (on read) while stressing this is serious [11/15]

You don't want blood on your hands. It won't be long before someone develops anxiety/depression as a reaction to a hate post. This is some high school cap. Verified anonymous reviews of funds/companies = ok. Anonymous reviews of people = *absolutely not*.

Playing w/ fire [12/15]

Now, I'm not one to shit on your website and not offer an alt. I can tell you worked hard on this, it has a nice minimalist design, and save the upvote mess, you've built in nice review website. But it cannot be this or any permutation of this. **Way too dangerous**. [13/15]

Either: pivot to having founders rate funds, not individual employees (eg YC's Bookface) OR allow people to say they are happy to do a reference call to share their experience and act as the platform that proxy's identity / contact details. The latter seems more promising [14/15]

This bars people from hiding behind anonymity and hurting someone. But whatever you choose, please disable the website in the meantime. Someone had to say this but it's gonna draw attention worsening things. It's your ethical obligation to shut down and rethink things [15/15]

As an epilogue: fellow founders, pls remember that move fast, break things philosophy is great for most companies, but not products where people can get hurt. You are always accountable for what you create and can't hide behind the excuse of "iterating" and "it's a hard problem!"

One thing I realize I didn't stress hard enough in this thread is that Managing Partners call the shots at a lot of funds. You may pin your blame on your specific point person, but odds are, that term sheet, diligence process, or rejection was mostly due to their bosses's rules.

This lends itself again to the thesis of rate funds, not people. If I have a bad experience buying a B2B SaaS product, I don't say "Wow Trent their customer success rep is a terrible person, no refund!"

Good chance, Trent didn't decide to deny you a refund.

Latest Threads Unrolled: