It should be based on the number of successes relative to the amount raised or ROI and that picture is quite different. In that sense London is way behind SV.

▲

dukeyukey 18 hours ago | parent [-]

The article doesn't dispute that London is way behind SV. What it's saying is that for non-US funding, London dominates.

▲

jacquesm 18 hours ago | parent [-]

But it isn't true. For the rest of the world SV is still the place to go to, one way or another. The difference is just too big. What you could say is that London is the place to try to raise money if you can't raise in SV. But you'll have to realize that your chances of success are dramatically lower that way to the point that you're going to end up a with a small fraction of the stock yourself after the inevitable dilution through follow up rounds because you couldn't raise a large enough round to begin.

VC in London is harsh, both for the start-ups and for the VCs. What does happen is that a company manages to stay alive long enough to raise a secondary round in the USA, but then you can't really make the original claim in the TFA.

	▲	dukeyukey 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> But it isn't true. For the rest of the world SV is still the place to go to, one way or another. We are using different meanings for the same phrase. SV is the best place to raise, IF YOU CAN AND ARE WILLING TO RAISE THERE. But not everyone can, nor does everyone want to. And of the locations that are not in the US, London dominates. And hell, Americans raise in Boston, Seattle, NYC, and so on. Not even all Americans move to SV, let alone people who may not even get a visa to enter the US.