The newly-renamed National Angel Capital Association has announced its first Co-Investment Summit for November 19 (was there really any confusion about what the National Angel Organization did? I asked my brother the priest, and he said his people were clear on the matter). The event is designed "to bridge even more of the funding gap faced by seed- and early-stage enterprises in Canada."

Two points here: first, the NCAO is looking for some companies to pitch - go check the site if you are interested. Second - and I'm seguing away from the NCAO to another matter altogether - it's time we stopped attaching the phrase "funding gap" to early stage ventures.

In a relative world, the funding gap for research and commericalization is a teeny tiny little thing. Like the gap between Madonna's front teeth, it's not as charming as her publicists might want you to believe, but it's not as hideous as the gap you'll see in any hockey player's mouth, either.

It seems to me that, of the available government capital, most of it has been allocated to research and commercialization. If we're going to accurately speak of funding gaps and the need for urgent action, then public discourse in Canada needs to turn to later stage ventures.


We've all seen the "Valley of Death" charts that many advocates for government funding used to great effect 4 years ago. Now, however, those charts look much different. The new occupants of the Valley of Death are companies that angels and VCs have funded, that now find themselves with increasingly limited access to anything other than small bridge $$ from their current investors.


What's the likely size of this gap? According to the CVCA, in Canada 412 companies received VC funding in 2007. If you apply the "angels do 30-40% more deals than VCs" maxim, that means approximately 1200 received angel funding during the same period. Applying the 18-24 month cash runway rule of investing, that means that most of these are now seeking follow-on funding in a cash desert.

I wish Paul Kedrosky was here – he could draw me a nifty graph to illustrate the point.

Here are the questions we need to ask ourselves: Why is there no government policy that focuses on job retention/creation for this sector? What good is an innovation strategy that feeds academic researchers while it starves the current generation of entrepreneurs?

Disclaimer: Let's not get sidetracked by the debate over whether government support is the right way to foster innovation and entrepreneurship. The reality is that it is, in the near term, the predominant support available. Shouldn't some of that near-term support be directed to entrepreneurs who have proven they can commericalize a product and build a start-up?

A recent report by Asia Pacific News says that at least 2.7 million factory workers in southern China could lose their jobs as the global economic crisis hits demand for electronics, toys and clothes....

While I have never before used VentureBlog to discuss anything other than entrepreneurship and venture capital, I have decided to make an exception to discuss why it is I oppose Proposition 8 here in California. I have not made this decision lightly. I don’t believe in mixing business and politics. But I believe that Proposition 8 runs sufficiently counter to the basic tenets of fairness and human decency that power our democracy that I can not sit idly by.

I was not yet born when Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech at the March on Washington in 1963. Had I been alive, however, I like to think that I would have been there cheering him on. I like to think that I would have stood against segregation and done everything in my power to dismantle that unjust system. I like to think that I would have put my legal background to work defeating those laws that made interracial marriage illegal. I like to think that I would have joined the picket lines, sat at the lunch counters, sued the school systems . . . done whatever I could to fight the injustice of segregation.

Today I think that Californians are at a similar crossroads. Like the courts that invalidated Jim Crow laws and segregation a half century ago, the California Supreme Court has determined that the State may not discriminate between heterosexual couples and same sex couples — accordingly, the State Constitution requires that same sex couples be given the right to marry. In response to that ruling, thousands of same sex couples — many of whom had been in monogamous relationships for decades — rushed to get married. And, yet, those marriages are now in danger of being invalidated. That is just wrong.

A little over a month ago I attended the wedding of my good friends Ali and Laura. I came to know Ali and Laura as the moms of one of my son’s school friends. Ali and Laura are smart, successful, caring women who, above all else, are wonderful mothers. Their sons are growing up in a stable and loving home. Yet, until this year, Ali and Laura could not contemplate getting married. Their wedding ceremony was as much a celebration of their love for each other and their powerful committed relationship, as it was the validation of their family unit. At the wedding, my son’s friends celebrated the fact that they could have married parents just like the other kids in their school. It was truly a joyous day.

Yet, Proposition 8 seeks to take away that right. Not only would Proposition 8 strip Ali and Laura, and thousands of other committed gay couples like them, of their right to marry, it would strip their sons of their right to have married parents. Should we amend the State Constitution to not only take away Ali and Laura’s rights, but also the rights of their sons? And if Laura and Ali can be stripped of their right to wed, why not also my brother and sister in law, who are of different races? Should they fear that their rights are the next to be stripped away? Should my niece be concerned that the citizens of California may deem her unworthy of having married parents as well?

To my mind, voting NO on Proposition 8 is very simply an issue of fairness. Proposition 8 seeks to amend the Constitution to take away the rights of same sex couples — the very same rights that heterosexual couples have always had. That is not equality. All of my children, gay or straight, should have the opportunity to marry the person they love. Anything shy of that simply does not reflect the ideals upon which this country has been built. So I urge you to vote NO on Proposition 8 this coming Tuesday. Ali and Laura’s sons deserve to have happily married parents. Who are we to take that away from them?

While I have never before used VentureBlog to discuss anything other than entrepreneurship and venture capital, I have decided to make an exception to discuss why it is I oppose Proposition 8 here in California. I have not made this decision lightly. I don't believe in mixing business and politics. But I believe that Proposition 8 runs sufficiently counter to the basic tenets of fairness and human decency that power our democracy that I can not sit idly by.

I was not yet born when Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech at the March on Washington in 1963. Had I been alive, however, I like to think that I would have been there cheering him on. I like to think that I would have stood against segregation and done everything in my power to dismantle that unjust system. I like to think that I would have put my legal background to work defeating those laws that made interracial marriage illegal. I like to think that I would have joined the picket lines, sat at the lunch counters, sued the school systems . . . done whatever I could to fight the injustice of segregation.

Today I think that Californians are at a similar crossroads. Like the courts that invalidated Jim Crow laws and segregation a half century ago, the California Supreme Court has determined that the State may not discriminate between heterosexual couples and same sex couples -- accordingly, the State Constitution requires that same sex couples be given the right to marry. In response to that ruling, thousands of same sex couples -- many of whom had been in monogamous relationships for decades -- rushed to get married. And, yet, those marriages are now in danger of being invalidated. That is just wrong.

A little over a month ago I attended the wedding of my good friends Ali and Laura. I came to know Ali and Laura as the moms of one of my son's school friends. Ali and Laura are smart, successful, caring women who, above all else, are wonderful mothers. Their sons are growing up in a stable and loving home. Yet, until this year, Ali and Laura could not contemplate getting married. Their wedding ceremony was as much a celebration of their love for each other and their powerful committed relationship, as it was the validation of their family unit. At the wedding, my son's friends celebrated the fact that they could have married parents just like the other kids in their school. It was truly a joyous day.

Yet, Proposition 8 seeks to take away that right. Not only would Proposition 8 strip Ali and Laura, and thousands of other committed gay couples like them, of their right to marry, it would strip their sons of their right to have married parents. Should we amend the State Constitution to not only take away Ali and Laura's rights, but also the rights of their sons? And if Laura and Ali can be stripped of their right to wed, why not also my brother and sister in law, who are of different races? Should they fear that their rights are the next to be stripped away? Should my niece be concerned that the citizens of California may deem her unworthy of having married parents as well?

To my mind, voting NO on Proposition 8 is very simply an issue of fairness. Proposition 8 seeks to amend the Constitution to take away the rights of same sex couples -- the very same rights that heterosexual couples have always had. That is not equality. All of my children, gay or straight, should have the opportunity to marry the person they love. Anything shy of that simply does not reflect the ideals upon which this country has been built. So I urge you to vote NO on Proposition 8 this coming Tuesday. Ali and Laura's sons deserve to have happily married parents. Who are we to take that away from them?

While I have never before used VentureBlog to discuss anything other than entrepreneurship and venture capital, I have decided to make an exception to discuss why it is I oppose Proposition 8 here in California. I have not made this decision lightly. I don't believe in mixing business and politics. But I believe that Proposition 8 runs sufficiently counter to the basic tenets of fairness and human decency that power our democracy that I can not sit idly by.

I was not yet born when Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech at the March on Washington in 1963. Had I been alive, however, I like to think that I would have been there cheering him on. I like to think that I would have stood against segregation and done everything in my power to dismantle that unjust system. I like to think that I would have put my legal background to work defeating those laws that made interracial marriage illegal. I like to think that I would have joined the picket lines, sat at the lunch counters, sued the school systems . . . done whatever I could to fight the injustice of segregation.

Today I think that Californians are at a similar crossroads. Like the courts that invalidated Jim Crow laws and segregation a half century ago, the California Supreme Court has determined that the State may not discriminate between heterosexual couples and same sex couples -- accordingly, the State Constitution requires that same sex couples be given the right to marry. In response to that ruling, thousands of same sex couples -- many of whom had been in monogamous relationships for decades -- rushed to get married. And, yet, those marriages are now in danger of being invalidated. That is just wrong.

A little over a month ago I attended the wedding of my good friends Ali and Laura. I came to know Ali and Laura as the moms of one of my son's school friends. Ali and Laura are smart, successful, caring women who, above all else, are wonderful mothers. Their sons are growing up in a stable and loving home. Yet, until this year, Ali and Laura could not contemplate getting married. Their wedding ceremony was as much a celebration of their love for each other and their powerful committed relationship, as it was the validation of their family unit. At the wedding, my son's friends celebrated the fact that they could have married parents just like the other kids in their school. It was truly a joyous day.

Yet, Proposition 8 seeks to take away that right. Not only would Proposition 8 strip Ali and Laura, and thousands of other committed gay couples like them, of their right to marry, it would strip their sons of their right to have married parents. Should we amend the State Constitution to not only take away Ali and Laura's rights, but also the rights of their sons? And if Laura and Ali can be stripped of their right to wed, why not also my brother and sister in law, who are of different races? Should they fear that their rights are the next to be stripped away? Should my niece be concerned that the citizens of California may deem her unworthy of having married parents as well?

To my mind, voting NO on Proposition 8 is very simply an issue of fairness. Proposition 8 seeks to amend the Constitution to take away the rights of same sex couples -- the very same rights that heterosexual couples have always had. That is not equality. All of my children, gay or straight, should have the opportunity to marry the person they love. Anything shy of that simply does not reflect the ideals upon which this country has been built. So I urge you to vote NO on Proposition 8 this coming Tuesday. Ali and Laura's sons deserve to have happily married parents. Who are we to take that away from them?

Applications from Google, Amazon, Six Apart, WordPress, Box.net, Huddle, SlideShare and TripIt, are now usable on LinkedIn.

Vancouver's Yaletown Venture Partners made it official today, issuing a press release about a first closing on their $100 million fund. They have $65 million in committed capital for early stage clean tech and IT.

Today's release - aimed at both potential investees and potential limited partners - is an interesting reflection of the times. Three years ago, a VC generally woudln't announce that one could only raise 2/3 of the fund it marketed. Now, it's an achievement to be celebrated.

The fund is open for additional LP investmetns for another 12 months.

TRENDSnIFF reported Friday that UK private equity inverstor Actis is leading an investment push into two China companies: 7 Days Inn and Ambow Education. Other investors involved in the two deals...

Download the MP3.

Last time Derek Sivers was on Venture Voice three years ago he told us he had to "whack 'em [investors] off with a stick". Now we know why. Derek announces on our show for the first time the amount he sold his company for this past summer: $22 million. Derek owned 100% of the equity. Though he might have made more money than most of his fellow music entrepreneurs, Derek's no Gordon Gekko. In this interview, Derek tells us how he put all of his money from the sale into a charitable trust, that he didn't even visit CD Baby's office once during the last year he owned it, and what he's up to next.

Want more Venture Voice? Become a Venture Voice member or contact us about sponsoring the show.

Paul Graham hammers home a vital point - why one should start your own venture in a bad economy - providing compelling reasons and history lessons to prove his point. The economy has some effect, certainly, but as a predictor of success it's rounding error compared to the founders.