As my note below implies, there's a big difference between a lead investor and a follow on. If he were a go-to VC, we'd see it in his portfolio.
Vinod's been at this far long enough to judge his results. He gets his ROI but at the expense of founders. That's why we don't see him in the upper echelon and where his marketing doesn't match what is known among knowledgeable parties.
KV recently led the Series A in Quartzy and a Series A in another deeply technical YC company (soon to be announced), which had offers from other highly prestigious firms.
Most YC companies are addressing markets and challenges that are ideal fits for KV. There are probably 10 companies or so that would (even with the benefits of hindsight) been quintessential Series A candidates for us.
Footnote: I write this as someone who loves YC and has personally invested in over a dozen YC companies.
And as someone knows the word has gotten out about Vinod must actively combat that reputation.
I wish you luck. Good Vinod can be as fine a partner as any, I'm sure. It's just the history of Bad Vinod, and how he has treated founders, that holds the firm back. His partners end up more as minions than a check on his ego.
(InterviewStreet isn't listed because they haven't added their funding data to Crunchbase; there may be others like this, too.)