Look at the size of the list, and ask yourself if all those people would accede to a request to release their name and status as investors to the public. Not likely.
I googled ten of them. Every single one was a publicly-known angel investor. Maybe you should consider that the guy writing the post actually has contact with these people and has vastly superior knowledge of what they want than you do.
> Maybe you should consider that the guy writing the post actually has contact with these people and has vastly superior knowledge of what they want than you do.
And maybe you should consider thinking a bit more deeply. First, what value does an exhaustive list of investors add to the article? Second, do you really think it's in the interest of a small investor to have his name be associated with a particular speculative investment in this way?
If an investor's specific choices are known, he will be approached by people who know how to pitch a given project in a way calculated for maximum effect. This distorts the investment process. It's the equivalent of SEO for investors.
> and has vastly superior knowledge of what they want than you do.
If that were true, he wouldn't be an applicant, he would be an investor. And to think, if you thought a bit more deeply before posting, this obvious fact would have occurred to you.
Your incredible arrogance never ceases to amaze, I'll grant you that.
Most of the investors I googled were already specifically known to have been investors in easypost. This should not surprise you, most startup angels and seed investors do not hide their investments, and they are routinely named in press releases and media stories.
And I was obviously referring to what they want in this particular matter. Though I'm quite confident he knows more about what they want in general than you do, too, since you routinely show yourself to be horrendously out of touch with your fellow humans.
While you are an exceptionally skilled software developer and investor, you probably need to work on communicating in a more amiable fashion. You don't come across very well here and nknighthb's point is both argued better and more logically backed. It seems very clear that those names would not be published in a high visibility public relations press release like this one without contractual agreement.
> While you are an exceptionally skilled software developer and investor, you probably need to work on communicating in a more amiable fashion.
Why bother? I just used crystal clear prose to make a legitimate point about investors' understandable wish to avoid pointless and undermining publicity, and got downvoted by people who obviously didn't understand what I was saying, not for lack of clear prose on my part, but because of a lack of real-world experience on theirs.
> You don't come across very well here and nknighthb's point is both argued better and more logically backed.
Nonsense. I addressed the topic, and nknighthb tried to make me the topic. That's not only trolling and ineffective communication, it's a logical error.
> It seems very clear that those names would not be published in a high visibility public relations press release like this one without contractual agreement.
That may seem clear to you, but it's also obviously and transparently false. With the exception of corporate VC entities, individual investors are naturally protective of their privacy and would prefer it if their choices were not made a matter of public record.
My experience in this area goes back to the early days at Apple Computer, where we had to be very careful how we described the handful of angel investors who considered backing what at that time were almost two guys in a garage. Look -- this is investment 101. I don't know how to make this clear to you, but listing investors is a tricky business, not to be taken lightly. It's more political than it is logical, and it's not remotely like writing software.
> My experience in this area goes back to the early days at Apple Computer
Which doesn't have any bearing on your ability to read these investor's minds. Unless you're saying you tapped their phones, hacked their email accounts, and followed them around in public and determined they never gave permission to publicize the investment.
And your "investment 101" comes from a different century. It's sad that you're so firmly convinced we're still in the 1970s. 2014 is much better.
> And you certainly have no idea to whom you are speaking.
I know exactly who I'm speaking to, Paul. It doesn't matter. Financial success is not authority, and age is not omniscience. You are mortal and fallible. That you would even play this card shows how pathetic you have become.
