6 ms·

It's the YC playbook. I guess it works, Corgi for example a "AI" insurance company with like only 5 real engineers and a bunch of growth people. Their main cust

by meric_ 2mo ago

It's the YC playbook. I guess it works, Corgi for example a "AI" insurance company with like only 5 real engineers and a bunch of growth people. Their main customer is other startups mostly YC. Same with Delve.

reticulates 2mo ago
Corgi is even worse than just circular revenue, their entire insurance business is a house of cards: https://reticulating.substack.com/p/ycombinators-corgi-insurance-a-26 https://reticulating.substack.com/p/ycombinators-corgi-insur...
- mrandish 2mo ago
  I've been out of the valley (circular) loop for a bit so I'd never heard of Corgi. OMFG...
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- cj 2mo ago
  TLDR: The insurance market is highly regulated, with measures in place to protect customers if your insurance company becomes insolvent. Corgi does not have those protections, because they've figured out how to offer a product similar to insurance without being regulated like a normal insurance company. Innovation!
- Eridrus 2mo ago
  Thanks for the article, I assume you are the author. I think the main question about Corgi is: are they underpricing risk so severely that they go bust? And honestly, we have no idea. For all we know startups are buying overpriced insurance from Corgi because they have a better brand and are easier to deal with than Berkshire's army of underwriters. Though it's also worth noting that the main reasons startups buy insurance is not because they want insurance, but because enterprise customers demand insurance. Which is to say, it's not out of the realm of possibility that funded startups are not actually that price sensitive, because they just want to get the deal signed and move on. We got our insurance elsewhere because we're a little older, so I have no actual opinion of Corgi, but there's a lot of stuff that enterprise customers demand that is driven by some compliance checklist. Delve took this to an extreme, but directionally, they were providing the service customers wanted, and at least in the insurance market, you can just pay more to paper over your problems rather than addressing the core risks in a way where there is no fraud. We pay for random shit we don't need that delivers no value for enterprise customers to tick boxes, for all I know Corgi fills the same need.
  - python_charmer 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ElProlactin 2mo ago
    > I think the main question about Corgi is: are they underpricing risk so severely that they go bust? And honestly, we have no idea. You should read up on what a risk retention group is and how it works. To me, it's even worse than you think. > For all we know startups are buying overpriced insurance from Corgi because they have a better brand... Is this tongue in cheek? > ...and are easier to deal with than Berkshire's army of underwriters. Or they provide "insurance" for things that the world's most experienced insurers don't want to touch, or won't touch without a lot of underwriting. Which in itself is a red flag.
    - Eridrus 2mo ago
      > You should read up on what a risk retention group is and how it works. To me, it's even worse than you think. I did some basic reading but don't really see anything particularly wrong with them. AFAICT, the argument being advanced against Corgi is that insured customers might be doing risky things assuming their insurance will bail them out. This just doesn't ring true to me because I think most startup founders are just willing to accept more risk and accept that sometimes that includes legal risk. When you look at Corgi's marketing, e.g. https://www.corgi.insure/ai https://www.corgi.insure/ai what you'll see in the common risk triggers is basically compliance: AI Safety Audits, VC due diligence, EU Regulation. It's basically all about showing other people that you're "doing something", not because you think you need or want insurance. I think the comparison to Delve is actually quite apt: startups generally do not care about SOC 2, they just need the checkbox that their customers are asking for. And startup's customers often themselves don't really care, they are just doing it to satisfy their own SOC 2 requirements, ad infinitum. I think the main people that are being potentially deceived here are not Corgi's customers, those customers' customers, but I don't think they truly care either and are also checking a box.
- gadders 2mo ago
  From the article: "The founders Nico and Emily ... have been recognised by Forbes 30 under 30 UH OH
- CodesInChaos 2mo ago
  > As of 2026-07-13, Corgi’s promise of a lawsuit against the author for this post has not materialized. Readers are encouraged to draw their own conclusions about Corgi’s choice to try and suppress articles with the use of baseless legal threats. Did you write in more detail about that threat somewhere?
  - reticulates 2mo ago
    "Corgi builds insurance structures that allow us to best serve the needs of our customers. For technology companies, operating a technology liability line through a Risk Retention Group is not unusual, improper, or exotic; it is a standard insurance structure for specialty liability risks where similarly situated businesses benefit from tailored underwriting, specialized coverage, and risk alignment. The suggestion that Corgi customers are unknowingly taking on “balance sheet risk,” member-assessment risk, or responsibility for unrelated insureds’ liabilities is false. Your draft’s statement that “Corgi will help you share that risk,” combined with the question whether customers understand the risk of other companies in the group, does not merely describe RRGs in the abstract. It falsely implies that Corgi leaves customers exposed to open ended financial liability for other insureds. That implication is defamatory and false. RRGs are regulated insurance carriers subject to financial, reserve, governance, and regulatory requirements. They are not informal risk sharing clubs where policyholders unknowingly become responsible for each other’s balance sheets. The RRG structure unique to Corgi. Major insurance groups use different insurer structures for different classes of risk because different risks are best served by different structures. Berkshire Hathaway, which the draft itself invokes, has affiliated insurance operations involving Risk Retention Groups in specialty liability markets, including medical and legal professional liability. That underscores the point: RRGs are a widely recognized insurance structure for specialty liability lines, and allow insurers to provide more tailored coverage options rather than issuing a generic policy. The draft’s statement that Corgi “innovated with AI in a regulated industry by cutting corners” is also false and defamatory. Corgi raised millions pre-revenue and spent nearly two years building and obtaining regulatory approvals for its insurance operations, including approvals and requirements relating to reserves, pricing, liquidity, governance, and compliance. That is the opposite of “cutting corners.” Any allegation that Corgi used AI to evade regulatory approval, underwriting standards, reserve requirements, pricing controls, liquidity controls, or other compliance obligations is false. Any article suggesting otherwise, including by implying that Corgi misleads customers, conceals the RRG structure, exposes policyholders to undisclosed balance-sheet risk, or uses RRGs and AI to evade proper underwriting or regulatory obligations, is false and highly damaging. To be clear, if you publish these false statements or defamatory implications, Corgi will sue you personally and will pursue all available claims and remedies against you and any other responsible parties. Corgi has enforced its rights before and will do so again. You should not mistake this for an abstract legal reservation." From their head of legal.

by meric_ 2mo ago

reticulates 2mo ago

Corgi is even worse than just circular revenue, their entire insurance business is a house of cards: https://reticulating.substack.com/p/ycombinators-corgi-insurance-a-26 https://reticulating.substack.com/p/ycombinators-corgi-insur...

mrandish 2mo ago
I've been out of the valley (circular) loop for a bit so I'd never heard of Corgi. OMFG...
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
cj 2mo ago
TLDR: The insurance market is highly regulated, with measures in place to protect customers if your insurance company becomes insolvent. Corgi does not have those protections, because they've figured out how to offer a product similar to insurance without being regulated like a normal insurance company. Innovation!
Eridrus 2mo ago
Thanks for the article, I assume you are the author. I think the main question about Corgi is: are they underpricing risk so severely that they go bust? And honestly, we have no idea. For all we know startups are buying overpriced insurance from Corgi because they have a better brand and are easier to deal with than Berkshire's army of underwriters. Though it's also worth noting that the main reasons startups buy insurance is not because they want insurance, but because enterprise customers demand insurance. Which is to say, it's not out of the realm of possibility that funded startups are not actually that price sensitive, because they just want to get the deal signed and move on. We got our insurance elsewhere because we're a little older, so I have no actual opinion of Corgi, but there's a lot of stuff that enterprise customers demand that is driven by some compliance checklist. Delve took this to an extreme, but directionally, they were providing the service customers wanted, and at least in the insurance market, you can just pay more to paper over your problems rather than addressing the core risks in a way where there is no fraud. We pay for random shit we don't need that delivers no value for enterprise customers to tick boxes, for all I know Corgi fills the same need.
- python_charmer 2mo ago
  [dead]
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- ElProlactin 2mo ago
  > I think the main question about Corgi is: are they underpricing risk so severely that they go bust? And honestly, we have no idea. You should read up on what a risk retention group is and how it works. To me, it's even worse than you think. > For all we know startups are buying overpriced insurance from Corgi because they have a better brand... Is this tongue in cheek? > ...and are easier to deal with than Berkshire's army of underwriters. Or they provide "insurance" for things that the world's most experienced insurers don't want to touch, or won't touch without a lot of underwriting. Which in itself is a red flag.
  - Eridrus 2mo ago
    > You should read up on what a risk retention group is and how it works. To me, it's even worse than you think. I did some basic reading but don't really see anything particularly wrong with them. AFAICT, the argument being advanced against Corgi is that insured customers might be doing risky things assuming their insurance will bail them out. This just doesn't ring true to me because I think most startup founders are just willing to accept more risk and accept that sometimes that includes legal risk. When you look at Corgi's marketing, e.g. https://www.corgi.insure/ai https://www.corgi.insure/ai what you'll see in the common risk triggers is basically compliance: AI Safety Audits, VC due diligence, EU Regulation. It's basically all about showing other people that you're "doing something", not because you think you need or want insurance. I think the comparison to Delve is actually quite apt: startups generally do not care about SOC 2, they just need the checkbox that their customers are asking for. And startup's customers often themselves don't really care, they are just doing it to satisfy their own SOC 2 requirements, ad infinitum. I think the main people that are being potentially deceived here are not Corgi's customers, those customers' customers, but I don't think they truly care either and are also checking a box.
gadders 2mo ago
From the article: "The founders Nico and Emily ... have been recognised by Forbes 30 under 30 UH OH
CodesInChaos 2mo ago
> As of 2026-07-13, Corgi’s promise of a lawsuit against the author for this post has not materialized. Readers are encouraged to draw their own conclusions about Corgi’s choice to try and suppress articles with the use of baseless legal threats. Did you write in more detail about that threat somewhere?
- reticulates 2mo ago
  "Corgi builds insurance structures that allow us to best serve the needs of our customers. For technology companies, operating a technology liability line through a Risk Retention Group is not unusual, improper, or exotic; it is a standard insurance structure for specialty liability risks where similarly situated businesses benefit from tailored underwriting, specialized coverage, and risk alignment. The suggestion that Corgi customers are unknowingly taking on “balance sheet risk,” member-assessment risk, or responsibility for unrelated insureds’ liabilities is false. Your draft’s statement that “Corgi will help you share that risk,” combined with the question whether customers understand the risk of other companies in the group, does not merely describe RRGs in the abstract. It falsely implies that Corgi leaves customers exposed to open ended financial liability for other insureds. That implication is defamatory and false. RRGs are regulated insurance carriers subject to financial, reserve, governance, and regulatory requirements. They are not informal risk sharing clubs where policyholders unknowingly become responsible for each other’s balance sheets. The RRG structure unique to Corgi. Major insurance groups use different insurer structures for different classes of risk because different risks are best served by different structures. Berkshire Hathaway, which the draft itself invokes, has affiliated insurance operations involving Risk Retention Groups in specialty liability markets, including medical and legal professional liability. That underscores the point: RRGs are a widely recognized insurance structure for specialty liability lines, and allow insurers to provide more tailored coverage options rather than issuing a generic policy. The draft’s statement that Corgi “innovated with AI in a regulated industry by cutting corners” is also false and defamatory. Corgi raised millions pre-revenue and spent nearly two years building and obtaining regulatory approvals for its insurance operations, including approvals and requirements relating to reserves, pricing, liquidity, governance, and compliance. That is the opposite of “cutting corners.” Any allegation that Corgi used AI to evade regulatory approval, underwriting standards, reserve requirements, pricing controls, liquidity controls, or other compliance obligations is false. Any article suggesting otherwise, including by implying that Corgi misleads customers, conceals the RRG structure, exposes policyholders to undisclosed balance-sheet risk, or uses RRGs and AI to evade proper underwriting or regulatory obligations, is false and highly damaging. To be clear, if you publish these false statements or defamatory implications, Corgi will sue you personally and will pursue all available claims and remedies against you and any other responsible parties. Corgi has enforced its rights before and will do so again. You should not mistake this for an abstract legal reservation." From their head of legal.