I understand that many people have a connection between 'angel' and 'charity' but I've always equated the angel in angel investing with 'guardian angel' which is someone who can see more of the hazards facing the team and give them a heads up or a nudge when one of those comes close to being a 'problem.' This isn't charity, it is providing a heads up sort of service.
Maybe we need a new label that identifies people like him. I'd like to believe that I would qualify for whatever it is that we come up with as well, but others need to decide that.
For many of the same reasons he so eloquently described I've avoided using the "angel" term like the plague, even if some people need the quick epithet to summarize where you fit in this crazy world of ours.
The so-called democratization(/crowding?) of funding is going to bring more, not less, of these types of dumb-money checkbook swinging people out into play. It will end in tears for many, but as long as we are all adults about it, and we don't place those bets with large pools of money that should be directed to a different asset class like fixed income for pension funds distributions, we'll survive yet another period of frothiness and call it a day while we wait for the next one to materialize.
There is no central bank that plays with the valuations of things (ie. price controls) in the startup ecosystem, and that's a great thing, mind you. Yet as long as IPOs like $FB today return not 1 but 3 VC funds in one large swing for the fences, we are all going to be playing this game here for a while.
Pick a side, enjoy the game and don't hate the player but the game (while you try to change it if you can!) We can all thank PG for some of the most recent changes, and blame him for the unintended consequences of his particular version of the reality distortion field.
If those numbers are right then that still does sound out of reach. Though to be honest, $100k per investment also sounds out of reach to me but I haven't had any big silicon valley payouts.
