zlacker

>>donsup+(OP)
The last few weeks (months, really) has highlighted an incredible lack of discernment in the VC-verse wrt the thing we call web3. Now. I have no experience doing what YC does and don’t claim to, but the jig here was so transparent that the smallest drop of “street smart” should’ve been enough to set off some alarms.

We’re approaching a point where being passed over for “culture fit” is a compliment. Hopefully the embarrassment is enough to expand the founder vetting checkboxes.

>>okwubo+x7
There were funds that did due diligence and built out models of the Luna/Terra/Anchor ecosystem and realized it was unstable.

You can talk to the people who built their models and they have lots of fun things to say about the ordeal.

>>photon+Aa
That raises an interesting ethical problem, really; should there be a duty to report this sort of thing, or is "scheme X is fundamentally flawed/a scam and investors will lose everything" legitimate proprietary information? As I understand it, various analysts were pretty sure at the time that Madoff's scheme was a Ponzi, but in general they didn't tell anyone (in fairness, one attempted to and had trouble getting listened to).

>>rsynno+1e
The SEC will pay you money if you report fraud, the problem is that it's not clear how illegal these schemes are, and for the ones that are illegal, whether or not the SEC will be able to build, and win a case.

Bitfinex, for example is being prosecuted. The SEC have cases against a few of the mid-level people, but the founder is hiding out somewhere in Asia, and will never see the inside of a US courtroom.

Also, it's very easy to con someone, but it's almost impossible to convince someone who has been conned that they've been cheated. If you do your due diligence, and disclose your findings, the marks will ignore you, the con artists will smear you in the press, start lawsuits against you, and everyone uninvolved will shrug their shoulders and 'both sides' your feud.