5 ms·

Tether truthing the eminent doom of tether is all well and good but why aren't we talking more about YCombinator promoting startups that burned their customer'

Tether truthing the eminent doom of tether is all well and good but why aren't we talking more about YCombinator promoting startups that burned their customer's money by sending it to anchor protocol UST ponzinomics while lying that those investments were held in USDC and USD? https://twitter.com/fatmanterra/status/1527153694218797058 https://twitter.com/fatmanterra/status/1527153694218797058 https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/stablegains https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/stablegains Or is it bad to talk about such things around here?

d3nj4l 4y ago
It was one of the most upvoted threads just yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224
- ulzeraj 4y ago
  That's not the link under the Latest news section on https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/stablegains https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/stablegains
  - lupire 4y ago
    That's a YC page ("they are talking"), not an HN page ("we are talking"). We already knew YC's ethics -- they proudly look for "naughty" founders who "hack real world systems" for personal gain.
robbiep 4y ago
Definitely looks pretty bad - but on the other hand, an accelerator not making any bets in crypto is not a sensible accelerator. You need to make bets everywhere and hopefully some stick. The other side of that is some don’t stick, and some go proper pear shaped. Make enough bets, it has to happen. I’ve got no idea what their original pitch is, I certainly wouldn’t back a crypto startup that ostensibly aims to do something like what it looks like they tried to do, but if I was making 300 bets a couple times a year I’d be silly not to do something in the space. Whether a ycombinator seal of approval lead to investment which lead to consumers getting fleeced and culpability in that situation, I don’t know. It’s crypto. If you’re silly enough to think it’s a safe investment, you’re blind. A company can also say a lot of things differently from first pitch to accepting millions from consumers. As an investor with 10%ish equity, you’ve got some sway, but you don’t have much sway. And who is to say their bet isn’t the right one. A stain, but I don’t know about righteous indignation, I don’t know how much culpability transfers back to yc… but I don’t feel it’s a whole lot
- ulzeraj 4y ago
  The problem here is not a bet on crypto but a company that basically went "oh hey sorry too bad the USD displayed on your account is actually UST. K thx bye".
  - robbiep 4y ago
    I think I cover that. Company does not equal backer. Bad behaviour by company is not the responsibility of investors, it’s the responsibility of the board, the exec, and ultimately the courts. Investors can shape and influence, investors hopefully provide a filter and feedback, but everyone can get swept up in a good story. Company should be caned. Yc? I’ve already said what I feel.
    - pmyteh 4y ago
      It's not the legal responsibility of the investors, because society has given them limited liability. It may or may not be their moral responsibility, depending on what they knew, encouraged, or whatever. And the usual payoff for morally-shady but legally-blameless behaviour is reputational damage.
      - formerkrogemp 4y ago
        Y-Combinator exists to make Paul Graham and it's investors money. Morality is not money. Y-Combinator doesn't exist to make morality for its investors.
        etrautmann 4y ago
        This is not a good argument. Of course companies can optimize for multiple objectives and to pretend that any company doesn’t is willfully blinding oneself to reality.
        UncleMeat 4y ago
        Maybe it'd be better if our society reprioritized so "these organizations are all amoral actors who exist for no other purpose except to fatten the wallets of their owners" isn't the assumed norm.
nikanj 4y ago
Didn’t we have a absolutely massive thread about this just earlier this week? How much more can we talk about it? Is it the only thing we should be talking about?
imustbeevil 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224 Are you aware of the search feature? Or are you wondering why people aren't talking about something tangential in this thread specifically? People talk about YC companies all the time. There is no weighting, no one flagging posts about YC companies. Most people here aren't part of YC, we have no reason to give them any more leeway than anyone else. The main reason no one in a random cryptocurrency thread is talking about one random cryptocurrency company is because that company is not a significant part of the industry, and no one except the people getting Goxxed even know it exists.
haasted 4y ago
There was significant and critical discussion about that yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224
twirlock 4y ago
tluyben2 4y ago
> Or is it bad to talk about such things around here? Don't think if there is good reasoning and no name calling etc. I would love to hear the explanation how these companies even got into YC from the people who picked them. Is this some type of divide between purely making money at YC (which can be dirty, immoral, bordering on criminal etc) and the tech community of HN who are generally against that sort of thing? I mean it's not only crypto; it's dark patterns, privacy invasion etc; HN is generally against that, but probably many YC companies would be dead without them. So is that the reason? YC!=HN?
gsibble 4y ago
YC has never invested particularly morally knowing many of their founders and companies. I wouldn't say it's their strong suit.
eloff 4y ago
It's obvious YC would make some crypto bets. The same way Ark invest is doing on the public markets, YC will do at the seed stage to ensure they have exposure to a market segment that might turn into a big thing (I'm skeptical, but it's not impossible and I don't have a crystal ball.) What I'm curious about is the initial pitch. Did YC have a way to know that company was a terrible (potentially fraudulent) idea, or did the founders mask it sufficiently that it would have been difficult to tell?
- gitfan86 4y ago
  Either they are incompetent to realize that crypto is 99% a scam and should be avoided or they knew it was a scam but still thought they could make some money before it all fell apart (Coinbase investors)
  - eloff 4y ago
    Look, I tend to agree with you. Crypto has not found it's use case, it has a lot of scams, a lot of environmental issues, and other problems. It's been many years, it's fair to think if it hasn't found that killer application yet, that maybe it never will. But it's also still possible that it will. If you make a living by making long bets, then it's completely reasonable to want exposure to crypto.
    - gitfan86 4y ago
      If you are in the business of promoting your brand to young entrepreneurs, so that they include you in funding rounds, then yes, it makes sense to have exposure to anything that young entrepreneurs are working on. If you are in the business of owning a piece of any company that may go public via IPO or SPAC one day, then yes, might as well give money to anyone who seems like they may be able to get to that finish line. If on the other hand you are in the business of predicting the future of technology, it doesn't make sense to have exposure to technologies that are 99% scams on the off chance that someone accidently makes something useful in an effort to get rich. There is a lot of real innovation happening in the world that deserve that funding.

d3nj4l 4y ago

It was one of the most upvoted threads just yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224

ulzeraj 4y ago
That's not the link under the Latest news section on https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/stablegains https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/stablegains
- lupire 4y ago
  That's a YC page ("they are talking"), not an HN page ("we are talking"). We already knew YC's ethics -- they proudly look for "naughty" founders who "hack real world systems" for personal gain.

robbiep 4y ago

Definitely looks pretty bad - but on the other hand, an accelerator not making any bets in crypto is not a sensible accelerator. You need to make bets everywhere and hopefully some stick. The other side of that is some don’t stick, and some go proper pear shaped. Make enough bets, it has to happen. I’ve got no idea what their original pitch is, I certainly wouldn’t back a crypto startup that ostensibly aims to do something like what it looks like they tried to do, but if I was making 300 bets a couple times a year I’d be silly not to do something in the space. Whether a ycombinator seal of approval lead to investment which lead to consumers getting fleeced and culpability in that situation, I don’t know. It’s crypto. If you’re silly enough to think it’s a safe investment, you’re blind. A company can also say a lot of things differently from first pitch to accepting millions from consumers. As an investor with 10%ish equity, you’ve got some sway, but you don’t have much sway. And who is to say their bet isn’t the right one. A stain, but I don’t know about righteous indignation, I don’t know how much culpability transfers back to yc… but I don’t feel it’s a whole lot

ulzeraj 4y ago
The problem here is not a bet on crypto but a company that basically went "oh hey sorry too bad the USD displayed on your account is actually UST. K thx bye".
- robbiep 4y ago
  I think I cover that. Company does not equal backer. Bad behaviour by company is not the responsibility of investors, it’s the responsibility of the board, the exec, and ultimately the courts. Investors can shape and influence, investors hopefully provide a filter and feedback, but everyone can get swept up in a good story. Company should be caned. Yc? I’ve already said what I feel.
  - pmyteh 4y ago
    It's not the legal responsibility of the investors, because society has given them limited liability. It may or may not be their moral responsibility, depending on what they knew, encouraged, or whatever. And the usual payoff for morally-shady but legally-blameless behaviour is reputational damage.
    - formerkrogemp 4y ago
      Y-Combinator exists to make Paul Graham and it's investors money. Morality is not money. Y-Combinator doesn't exist to make morality for its investors.
      - etrautmann 4y ago
        This is not a good argument. Of course companies can optimize for multiple objectives and to pretend that any company doesn’t is willfully blinding oneself to reality.
      - UncleMeat 4y ago
        Maybe it'd be better if our society reprioritized so "these organizations are all amoral actors who exist for no other purpose except to fatten the wallets of their owners" isn't the assumed norm.

nikanj 4y ago

Didn’t we have a absolutely massive thread about this just earlier this week? How much more can we talk about it? Is it the only thing we should be talking about?

imustbeevil 4y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224 Are you aware of the search feature? Or are you wondering why people aren't talking about something tangential in this thread specifically? People talk about YC companies all the time. There is no weighting, no one flagging posts about YC companies. Most people here aren't part of YC, we have no reason to give them any more leeway than anyone else. The main reason no one in a random cryptocurrency thread is talking about one random cryptocurrency company is because that company is not a significant part of the industry, and no one except the people getting Goxxed even know it exists.

haasted 4y ago

There was significant and critical discussion about that yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31431224

twirlock 4y ago

tluyben2 4y ago

> Or is it bad to talk about such things around here? Don't think if there is good reasoning and no name calling etc. I would love to hear the explanation how these companies even got into YC from the people who picked them. Is this some type of divide between purely making money at YC (which can be dirty, immoral, bordering on criminal etc) and the tech community of HN who are generally against that sort of thing? I mean it's not only crypto; it's dark patterns, privacy invasion etc; HN is generally against that, but probably many YC companies would be dead without them. So is that the reason? YC!=HN?

gsibble 4y ago

YC has never invested particularly morally knowing many of their founders and companies. I wouldn't say it's their strong suit.

eloff 4y ago

It's obvious YC would make some crypto bets. The same way Ark invest is doing on the public markets, YC will do at the seed stage to ensure they have exposure to a market segment that might turn into a big thing (I'm skeptical, but it's not impossible and I don't have a crystal ball.) What I'm curious about is the initial pitch. Did YC have a way to know that company was a terrible (potentially fraudulent) idea, or did the founders mask it sufficiently that it would have been difficult to tell?

gitfan86 4y ago
Either they are incompetent to realize that crypto is 99% a scam and should be avoided or they knew it was a scam but still thought they could make some money before it all fell apart (Coinbase investors)
- eloff 4y ago
  Look, I tend to agree with you. Crypto has not found it's use case, it has a lot of scams, a lot of environmental issues, and other problems. It's been many years, it's fair to think if it hasn't found that killer application yet, that maybe it never will. But it's also still possible that it will. If you make a living by making long bets, then it's completely reasonable to want exposure to crypto.
  - gitfan86 4y ago
    If you are in the business of promoting your brand to young entrepreneurs, so that they include you in funding rounds, then yes, it makes sense to have exposure to anything that young entrepreneurs are working on. If you are in the business of owning a piece of any company that may go public via IPO or SPAC one day, then yes, might as well give money to anyone who seems like they may be able to get to that finish line. If on the other hand you are in the business of predicting the future of technology, it doesn't make sense to have exposure to technologies that are 99% scams on the off chance that someone accidently makes something useful in an effort to get rich. There is a lot of real innovation happening in the world that deserve that funding.