, the site that allows entrepreneurs to anonymously review and rate venture capitalists, has that are banned from the site’s leaderboards.

What did these firms do to get on TheFunded’s blacklist? Founder Adeo Ressi says there are three possible reasons: Suspicious activity suggesting the firms pressured chief executives in their portfolio to write or review them favorably, threatening a member of TheFunded with legal action, and failing to make new investments. (That final category draws from the list that PEHub’s Daniel Primack has put together of “the walking dead,” namely firms that are still in business but lack the money to invest in new startups.) The site has also added a mechanism allowing members to flag firms for the blacklist.

Let’s be clear here: This is TheFunded’s list, not ours. We don’t have access to the algorithm that Ressi uses (along with member complaints) to find VCs who are trying to “game” the site. But Ressi says he isn’t just throwing names out there — he’s checked and confirmed every complaint that came from a member, and looked into enough cases flagged by the algorithm to be confident that it works. And he showed me comments on the site from entrepreneurs saying they had been pressured to leave positive reviews.

The list is too long for me to contact each of the firms — at least if I wanted to get a post up tonight — but I reached out to a few to get some perspective. David Stern, a partner with Clearstone Venture Partners, said:

You have to take everything in context. Who is more valuable to the community — someone who flames firms and calls other members “shills,” anonymously, without having real context or experience with a firm, or someone who names themselves, makes themselves available to the community, and shares their detailed experiences with the firm, even if asked by a firm to post? Obviously a CEO that is asked to post is not going to say anything negative, but they’re providing valuable information and making themselves available to the community.

Meanwhile, Kate Castle, Flybridge Capital Partners‘ vice president of marketing, said Flybridge had never pressured its CEOs for a favorable review or rating: “We do not know why we would be placed on this list.”

Firms on the blacklist remain in TheFunded’s database; their profiles are flagged with prominent warnings. Those on the list for suspicious reviews will be cleared after 90 to 120 days, firms on the list for not investing can be cleared if they submit proof of an investment in the last four weeks, and those on the list for legal threats are removed from the blacklist 90 days after the last threat or the lawsuit being dropped.

Here’s the list:

Suspicious reviews

  • Alsop Louie Partners
  • Bay Partners
  • Benchmark Capital
  • Clearstone Venture Partners
  • DFJ Mercury
  • Flybridge Capital partners
  • Greenhill SAVP
  • Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers
  • Matrix Partners
  • Milestone Venture Partners
  • Partech International
  • US Venture Partners
  • VantagePoint Venture Partners

Legal threat

  • EDF Ventures
  • GreenHills Ventures
  • IFC Ventures

Lack of new investments

  • Appian Venture Partners
  • ArrowPath Venture Capital
  • Blueprint Ventures
  • Centennial Ventures
  • CenterPoint Venture Partners
  • Concord Ventures
  • Crescendo Ventures
  • Crossbar Capital
  • Decima Ventures
  • Diamondhead Ventures
  • Eurofund LP
  • Hyperion Israel Venture Partners
  • InnoCal
  • Israel Seed Partners
  • Mercia Technology Seed Fund
  • Minor Ventures
  • NeoCarta Ventures
  • Oxford Bioscience Partners
  • Sequel Venture Partners
  • STAR Ventures
  • Tamar Technology Ventures
  • Vanguard Venture Partners
  • Veritas Venture Partners
  • Vesbridge Partners
  • Walden Israel
  • WaldenVC
  • WorldView Technology Partners
  • Youniversity Ventures