zlacker

>>akanet+(OP)
The irony of a company called "Stablegains" providing investments for a possibly incredibly volatile resource is astounding. Hope YC puts out a statement on this.

>>camdat+4c
Yeah, its quite disturbing that YC declined to comment - especially knowing how many similar crypto companies they are funding. I don’t want to see YC get targeted and brought down by the Feds.

>>prattc+Jc
Wouldn't YC be one of the defrauded investors?

>>verdve+6f
Sure, I'm expecting a statement more along the lines of "Here's how we attempted to do due diligence and failed (and thus failed in our responsibility to fund investors)" rather than accepting fiduciary responsibility for Stablecoin.

>>camdat+Wf
I think the due diligence at the point of acceptance into YC is fairly minimal. It might not even go beyond the application answers and the 10min interview... not sure though. I'd be curious to learn more about it.

*edit: Seems YC participated in the follow-on round after the batch ended, so I imagine some extra due diligence goes into that.

>>clpm4j+xg
The point is that they are an investor and do not run the company. Would they have known about allocation strategy, how to evaluate that? Even if they did know, are they in a position to control or dictate anything within the company?

This applies to investors at any company. At some point you have decided to believe in the founders and executive team, rather than deal with daily operations and micromanaging your portfolio

>>verdve+lj
there have been issues around this, insofar as how much the VC investors - who are part-owners, remember - are involved in the running of the company.

When Telegram did its failed ICO, a pile of the VCs who bought tokens behaved with sufficient involvement that the SEC deemed them underwriters, i.e. partially responsible for the offering.

So how much business help did Y Combinator offer this particular blatant Ponzi? Looking forward to YC and PG's comments on this.