zlacker

What does Paul Graham have to do with any of this? He hasn't been operationally involved with YC for years, lots of them, so far as I know. Also: YC invests in companies that are 2-3 people and a vague idea; that's the whole concept. Why wouldn't YC end up backing a shady cryptocurrency company? I read all of your comments and guess we're on the same page about "crypto" and wish YC was staying the hell away from it --- but if they're going to invest in "crypto" startups, they're going to get their share of companies like this.

>>tptace+(OP)
If you believe this company is an outright fraud (I don’t have an opinion) “shrug its crypto” is a horrendous defense for the funds backing it.

At a bare minimum they should be doing due diligence for their own investors to prevent losses if not the higher standard of being a good citizen and shutting down the fraud.

We would not think it’s ok for a fund backing pharma startups to give cash to Avon Barksdale…

>>kasey_+PE
I think I'm saying that YC by design funds companies at a point where it's too early to reliably determine whether they're an outright fraud. And YC can't shut down anything; they invest relatively little money and take zero control over their portfolio companies. The best they can do is performatively kick companies out of the program, so they can't access Bookface or whatever.

>>kasey_+PE
Let’s be honest, a VC fund would be backing Marlo, he’s got way more startup energy.

>>tptace+ud1
I don’t think public disavowals by early investors are performative. I think that would go a long way to limiting the damage actually.

>>kasey_+0A1
Fair enough. I mean, it's performative by definition! This company appears dead in the water. But you're right, sometimes the performance itself has value.