Interesting post/comment thread on why businesses are often closed or "translucent" rather than transparent. Not everyone involved is interested in making a big announcement, don't want to be a "hot startup" just want to put their heads down and work "tending their own garden", "translucency == storytelling"—sharing finished ideas (rather than process?) is more convincing (and profitable?), dealing with "undisclosed conflicts", helpful private exchanges over email.

VC industry has a really complicated relationship with access to information. Another post (forget where) pointed out that it's truly a social undertaking. Everyone wants to be first, based on speculation. While it would be fun to have open/leaked access to these kinds of communications (I'm sure it would tell a different story) "openness" can't really apply here in the way it can to journalism. the point of journalism is to tell stories. The point of VC is to grow companies. One requires exposé, the other requires discretion.

Fred Wilson:
"At Union Square Ventures, we pride ourselves on our transparency and openness. Wednesday's Airbnb post and Paul Graham's followup posting of our email thread on that opportunity is a good example of where being open benefits everyone involved, from Airbnb, to Y Combinator, to Union Square Ventures, and mostly to entrepreneurs out there who have always been curious what really goes on.

But there are plenty of times when we are not open. If an entrepreneur comes in and pitches us on an investment, we don't blog about it. We have all sorts of things going on in our portfolio right now that we'd love to talk about but obviously we can't and won't. And when we make an investment that the people involved decide should be kept quiet, we are fully capable of doing that."