????在早期投資界，沒有什么話題能比風險投資人和天使投資人之間的關系更能引發討論和爭議了。如今的融資環境日益多樣化，他們兩者到底是天敵，還是相輔相成？抑或兩者都是?

????AngelList引入聯合融資讓這場爭論變得更加復雜：天使作為牽頭投資者，眾籌有可能作為A輪融資，隨后是風險投資。在爭論哪種融資方式對于初創公司最為有利的唇槍舌劍中，極端的投資者和專家總是認為，未來的趨勢是非此即彼。

????我在從事風險投資之前曾經連續創立過多家企業。鑒于這樣的背景，我對聯合融資的看法處于中間地帶，但有些東西讓我很是擔心，特別是風投正在背離經過事實檢驗的種種策略，毫無根據地宣稱種子風投預示著風險等。

????AngelList的聯合融資平臺是對風投模式的一種創新，但與傳統企業有很多相似之處。在這種情形下，牽頭的天使實際上就是微型風投，承擔一名主動管理的基金經理角色，類似于風投管理有限合伙人的投資資本。這里的主要區別，也是很大的區別是，傳統風投模式是依托于基金運營，而天使聯合投資是基金經理依托于交易運營。天使可能在一項交易中獲利，而在另一項交易中虧損。

????天使會得益于投資更多的交易以及風險的降低，但在聯合投資模式下，天使與創業者之間的互動相比之前出現了顯著的改變。隨著有更多資金進入，同時又是一位天使在擔任牽頭投資人，創業者必須信賴天使。作為創業者，我會想知道這位天使是否有領投的經驗。這名天使將組成多少聯合投資，他/她將進行多少交易？在這樣的情形下，天使投資人的風險被聯合投資大幅降低，有那么多需要關注的事情，我有多少把握能贏得并保持他們的關注？另外一個非?，F實的風險是熱熱鬧鬧的聯合投資推高了估值，人為導致估值過高，可能妨礙未來進一步獲得風投融資。

????目前看來，問題比答案要多。歸根結底，我并不認為天使聯合投資一定會成功或失敗。事實上，我認為有些會成功，有些會失敗。而那些成功的可能會轉型為……風險投資人。

????天使的運作類似于微型風投，但很多風投都被一些天使投資者推崇的輕資本、廣撒網的方式所吸引。資本限制加上幾位“超級天使”的早期成功已經推動一些風投擺脫傳統的為顛覆性創新融資的商業模式，轉向一條阻力最小的路，采取大批具有資本效率的小規模投資——通常是消費者互聯網或軟件。不幸的是，這樣過度依賴某一個行業會忽視其他行業，損害創新。賺快錢的隨大溜交易并不是我們這個行業或經濟所需要的。這種規避風險的方法背離了傳統風投模式最擅長的領域：與創業者合作，為顛覆性創新融資。

????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.