Wired.com/Jim MerithewA week after Techcrunch founder Michael Arrington rocked the early investment community with allegations of collusion among its top players, two of the loudest mudslingers in the so-called Angelgate controversy took the stage together at a conference put on by none other than TechCrunch. The silence was deafening.

The TechCrunch Disrupt panel in San Francisco included the irascible Dave McClure, one of the so-called super angels who met for drinks at a San Francisco wine bar that moderator Arrington got wind of, showed up at, quickly left when met with silence and deadly stares but heard later from anonymous sources that the confab involved discussions which sounded a lot like illegal collusion to him.

And in this corner was Ron Conway, arguably Silicon Valley’s most powerful and successful angel investor, who lambasted the group in a leaked e-mail, saying they were more interested in making money than nurturing entrepreneurs.

So, the panel of eight VCs and angel investors started with the promise of a good “AngelGate” fight, as the seats on the panel filled and Conway was forced to sit next to McClure, whom he had pointedly called “classless,” referring to McClure’s habitual use of profanity and his over-the-top style.

While the tension was palatable, the issue quickly passed.

McClure, usually not one lacking an opinion, told the assembled he had said all he wanted on his blog. Chris Sacca, a former Google executive turned angel investor, attempted to play peace maker.

“I think Ron made this entire industry possible,” Sacca said, adding a defense of the investors who were at the recent dinner (there had been an earlier one that Sacca attended). “The guys in this industry absolutely believe in entrepreneurs.”

“It seems worth getting past,” Sacca finished. “I think this is a waste of time.”

For his part Conway simply said that “I think all the e-mails cover it,” referring to the e-mails from him and Chris Sacca that leaked onto TechCrunch.

But McClure and Conway tension stuck around throughout the later conversation about whether angel investors were really different from the institutional venture capital firms and whether founders should be allowed to get some money from their companies before IPOing or being bought.

“I think super angels vs. VCs is a bunch of confusion,” Conway said. “The super angels are just smaller VCs.”

McClure, a believer in lean startups, small investments and companies that sell for $50 to $100 million, tried to disagree, but Conway snapped back at him.

“Will you let me finish?” Conway said, antagonistically. “The point I’m making is there are big VCs and little VCs. What really matters is the individual partners, and which can add value to a startup.”

That ended the short session, making it clear that there’s still some very palpable tension among the super angels who are competing hard to be the one who puts early money into the next Twitter, Facebook and Google.

While it might just look like a meaningless soap opera, the contretemps bodes well for start-ups that are starting to be successful. Having these guys at each others’ throats, rather than conspiring to keep down valuations, means it will keep getting easier to get funding at better rates in the future — even if the only reason a company is valued at $4 million versus $2 million is because one angel hates another.

There’s no word yet if anyone’s Tesla was keyed in the conference parking lot. But if today’s show of passive-aggressiveness is any indication, it’s a pretty likely outcome one of these days.

Follow us for disruptive tech news: Ryan Singel and Epicenter on Twitter.

See Also:

• Showdown! Angels, Arrington to Go Mano a Mano
• VCs Adjust to Facing More Competitors for Fewer Companies.
• The Man Behind the TheFunded.com's VC Slagfest Reveals Himself
• VCs Put the Brakes on Early-Stage Startups

Authors: Ryan Singel

to know more click here