最近，PE Hub的博客作者Dan Primack爆料了14家名存实亡的VC，称其为the walking dead。随后，专为企业家点评VC的网站TheFunded.com发布了VC黑名单，涵盖44家VC，其中不乏KPCB、DFJ、Matrix这样的大牌基金。44家上榜公司里，12家被怀疑操纵点评；4家为了得到发表负面评论的匿名企业家信息，威胁要诉诸法律手段；其余28家为近期没有投资行为的VC。

TheFunded.com表示，如果名单上的公司在90到120天内停止操纵或取消法律威胁，则会将其从名单上清楚。没有投资行为的公司则可以通过证明自己在最近4周内发生过投资而撤出黑名单。

中国古话道，无风不起浪，何况这两份表单颇多共同处。以下名单上的VC，最好还是少碰。

操纵点评
Alsop Louie Partners
Bay Partners
Benchmark Capital
Clearstone Venture Partners
DFJ Mercury
Flybridge Capital partners
Greenhill SAVP
Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers
Matrix Partners
Milestone Venture Partners
Partech International
US Venture Partners
VantagePoint Venture Partners

法律威胁
EDF Ventures
GreenHills Ventures
IFC Ventures

缺少新投资项目
Appian Venture Partners
ArrowPath Venture Capital
Blueprint Ventures
Centennial Ventures
CenterPoint Venture Partners
Concord Ventures
Crescendo Ventures
Crossbar Capital
Decima Ventures
Diamondhead Ventures
Eurofund LP
Hyperion Israel Venture Partners
InnoCal
Israel Seed Partners
Mercia Technology Seed Fund
Minor Ventures
NeoCarta Ventures
Oxford Bioscience Partners
Sequel Venture Partners
STAR Ventures
Tamar Technology Ventures
Vanguard Venture Partners
Veritas Venture Partners
Vesbridge Partners
Walden Israel
WaldenVC
WorldView Technology Partners
Youniversity Ventures

虽然Chris的这番话恐怕夸张大于事实，不过倒是可以提醒一下那些为了圈钱而创业的“企业家”。那么，在当下消沉的市场里，VC的机会究竟有多少？神兜兜小姐以为，可能下一波的热点在healthcare，不过，并非我们所熟悉的传统医药，而是和消费者紧密结合的那部分领域。

相对研发新药、开发DNA相关数据库等传统热点医药投资领域，将信息技术运用到医药方面目前还是一块没什么人碰的馍馍。中国的医患信息沟通、医院采购药品渠道等向来很不透明，由此也造成大量资金浪费。如果研发这方面的信息平台，相信对病患和医院都能极大节约成本。可以开发的产品包括ERP应用、网络社区等。不懂pharmaceutical没有关系，只要看得清楚供求需要即可。而且这里面少不了技术活，也就饿不死现在正到处找钱的IT界精英们。

举个例子，创建于2000年的日本医生社区So-net M3，2008年营收达7千万美金，大部分收入来自广告。2007年的毛利在50%左右，净利在28%左右。

这间公司于2007年3月在日本主板上市，此前还分别通过联盟和收购的形式，于2005年进入韩国市场，于2006年进入美国市场。

So-net M3的存在节约了日本众多医药公司的高昂的宣传费用，此外他们还提供病人咨询、网络调查等服务。

窃以为，这类和普通百姓消费密切相关的医药类信息产品，不论是在日本、美国还是中国，都具有存在的必要。这类产品虽然与信息相关，但并不涉及到核心隐私，也不会对现有的医疗体系造成任何威胁。只要处理好和医院及主要医药代表的关系，相信就会得到消费者的亲睐。

不过，中国的创新能力向来很弱，光看web 2.0那些公司，几乎每一个都是国外翻版，还翻得不怎么像样。创新思维方面，恐怕和硅谷的差距至少在10年。更别提技术方面的落后了。不知道那些仍然拿着elevator pitch在VC之间周旋的中国IT界精英们，有多少会想到将技术和医药联系起来，又有多少会真去做一个实在的产品。

如果没有时间读完，那么请看神兜兜小姐摘抄的语录吧。

Of course, the reason startups do better when they turn down acquisition offers is not necessarily that all such offers undervalue startups. More likely the reason is that the kind of founders who have the balls to turn down a big offer also tend to be very successful. That spirit is exactly what you want in a startup.

I used to think of VCs as piratical: bold but unscrupulous. On closer acquaintance they turn out to be more like bureaucrats. They’re more upstanding than I used to think (the good ones, at least), but less bold. Maybe the VC industry has changed. Maybe they used to be bolder. But I suspect it’s the startup world that has changed, not them. The low cost of starting a startup means the average good bet is a riskier one, but most existing VC firms still operate as if they were investing in hardware startups in 1985.

And yet most VCs are driven by consensus, not just within their firms, but within the VC community. The biggest factor determining how a VC will feel about your startup is how other VCs feel about it.

The exciting thing about market economies is that stupidity equals opportunity. And so it is in this case. There is a huge, unexploited opportunity in startup investing. Y Combinator funds startups at the very beginning. VCs will fund them once they’re already starting to succeed. But between the two there is a substantial gap.

There are companies that will give $20k to a startup that has nothing more than the founders, and there are companies that will give $2 million to a startup that’s already taking off, but there aren’t enough investors who will give $200k to a startup that seems very promising but still has some things to figure out.

But there is a big opportunity here, and one way or the other it’s going to get filled. Either VCs will evolve down into this gap or, more likely, new investors will appear to fill it. That will be a good thing when it happens, because these new investors will be compelled by the structure of the investments they make to be ten times bolder than present day VCs.