Here's a recent Twitter thread by Timothy Jones https://twitter.com/timbeejones/ which seems relevant: https://twitter.com/timbeejones/status/1268665921364770816 . I can't vouch for it as I have zero experience of SV or being black, let alone the specifics here, but the author seems to be someone worth hearing on the subject.

Someone always complains about reading Twitter threads, so here's a thread unroll https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1268665921364770816.html while I have also cut and pasted it here (again, this is Timothy Jones not me):

> I’m glad there’s now a vibrant discussion about black tech entrepreneurs and VC. Now might be a good time to discuss an elephant in the room: the systematic pushing aside of Black founders to make way for a White CEO who is “bankable”. Happens more often than not. I’ve seen this happen in two tech bull mkts; I hope those who have newfound interest in Black founders don’t repeat this same mistake

Here's the way it goes: Black Founder has an idea they're passionate about; could be demographically anchored, or just a great idea and they're Black. By some Miracle they raise a seed. They go off, build product, get some revenue even...

Now it's Series A time. Again, by some Miracle they raise a VC Series A. They're now part of the rate 1% of VC backed founders who are black. They add to their board 1-2 VC's from the usual suspects. They start to build a team...

Here's where the move is made. Somewhere between A and going for a B, the VC's on the board call the founder for a "chat". They "strongly suggest" that the founder get some "help" in order to get the company to the next stage. And they know just the guy...

'Cause it's always a guy. I call him "Business Biff". He looks like he's stepped out of central casting for "White Dude CEO". The Board VC's explain that Biff can "help" raise the next round, and "you two should really work together".

Black Founder says: "Ok, cool. Will reach out to Biff on a few things if I need him". VC's give the puzzled, RCA Dog-watching-TV-Look. "You know, we think Biff should really come on board the company to help you out ". "As What?" asks the Black Founder. "I already have a head of Sales/Finance/Marketing/etc"..."Well, we were thinking Biff should become CEO, and you become Chairman" "Sayyyyy whaaaa?" says Black Founder. "Am I being fired?". "Oh, No!" say the VC's. "We want you to stay and guide the strategy, Biff will be responsible for the day to day, and putting together the fundraise"

Not going to go into the details but here's essentially what happens:.

1. VC's realize that having a Black CEO creates financing RISK for the next round.

2. Best way to reduce the risk is to bring in a CEO who "pattern matches"

3. The problem is they still need the Founder. They still need the Founder for (a) mkt knowledge (b) passion so he/she doesn't get fired. But the bump to Chairman is designed to "keep them working, but not in control". It's straight out of the unopened letter in "Invisible Man".

There's a lot more here, but I'm raising the point now so that people realize that downstream of funding, there are still a ton of practices which need reforming. The kicker: The VC's decided to bring Biff in when they did the A. In fact, the seed investors may have suggested it, and backchanneled it to the A rounders. The bottom line is that even the investors realized blackness as a "risk" that needs to be managed down/out.