????在過去，初創企業要找投資者，最好的辦法還是讓其他投資者出面來為自己擔保背書。如今，這種“社會認同” 式背書的作用已經越來越低了。

1. 顧問泡沫應歸咎于AngelList

????我見過的任何一家公司都有一份長長的顧問名冊潛在的種子投資者名單。隨著融資網站AngelLis的走紅，如今各家公司都熱衷于在這個網站上列出這些名單，以證明自己的實力和吸引力。

????AngelList上各公司的頁面上通常會列出自家的顧問名單，這樣的做法泛濫之后，就產生了顧問泡沫。初創公司提供一小部分股份，請顧問定期提供“建議”（AngelList創始人納瓦爾已表示，正在尋找更好的方式在網站上展示這些信息）。通常，提供建議基本上就是“讓我把你的名字放在投資者名錄中”。（個人觀點，我已經開始不再披露我與一些公司的關系，目的是讓我們關注產品，而不是在“關于公司”頁面上出現一個面熟的阿凡達。）

????因此，大多數精明的投資者已經不再那么看重（或者不那么推崇）顧問委員會的價值，除非創始人能夠說明為什么這很重要。比如，我的一位朋友正在打造一款應用軟件，針對非常特定的目標市場。在這個市場中，有一兩個名字真的可以幫助他建立客戶的信任，因此他只和他們尋求建立戰略顧問關系。

2. 充足的資金

????有這么多投資者：天使投資者、孵化器公司、早期基金、擁有種子附屬基金的晚期基金。每家都在四處進行小額投資，即便決定支持你，也已經不像以前那樣看重你的差異化了。

3. 也許“社會認同”不管用？

????我個人的經驗是，在確定天使投資項目的過程里，依靠社會認同做決定的效率越來越低，遠遠不如和初創企業團隊直接交流來的有效。投資是假以時日一點點積累得來的，恰巧獲得某幾位大佬的投資并不意味著什么，對于第一次創業的企業家來說尤其如此。我甚至得說，眾投在我看來不是件好事，缺乏牽頭投資人表明可能沒人愿意為公司前景放手一搏。

????對于問答網站Quora上的一個問題“社會認同作為投資策略是否有效”，諾瓦爾的回答很有意思，他說，如果所有的投資者都依賴社會認同，將會改變市場的性質。

????Not too long ago, the best thing a start-up could do to find investors was to get other investors to vouch for it. But, today, the value of "social proof" has been significantly diminished.

1. Blame AngelList for an Advisor Bubble

????Every company I see has some roster of advisors and/or soft-circled seed investors already committed. It's gone from evidence of company traction to merely an execution step before hitting 'publish' on the AngelList profile.

????The prominence of "Advisors" on the AngelList profile has artificially inflated the perceived value of attracting "name brand" confidants. This, in turn, has resulted in an advisor bubble, where people are constantly getting asked to "advise" in exchange for a small amount of equity (Naval at AngelList has mentioned looking at a better way to present this information on site). Often advising means very little beyond "let me put you in the investor deck." [Personally, I've started to not disclose my relationship with some companies in order to allow us to focus on the product not a recognizable avatar for their About page]

????As a result, most savvy investors are starting to discount (or at least push on) the value of an advisory board unless the founder can articulate why that's important. For example, a friend of mine is building an app with a very specific target market. Within this market there's a name or two that would really help him build credibility with customers, and thus he's pursuing a strategic advisory relationship.

2. Abundance of Dollars

????So many investors. Angel investors, incubators, early stage funds, later stage funds with seed side funds. And they're all spreading little bets everywhere so any one of them deciding to back your company is less differentiated than prior.

3. Maybe Social Proof Doesn't Work?

????My personal experience is that the angel investments where I relied more on social proof, rather than on than my own direct relationship with the team, have been less productive (both in terms of returns and fun). So while investing syndicates are cultivated over time, the happenstance moment-in-time collection of a handful of investors seems to not add much value, especially when it's a first-time entrepreneur. I'd go so far as to say a party round for me is now a negative signal in many deals because the lack of a lead investor suggests there might not be a single individual who really has a personal stake in the outcome.

????A Quora question on whether social proof works as an investing strategy has an interesting answer from Naval who notes that if all investors rely upon social proof it changes the nature of the marketplace.