3 ms·

I think "fraudulent" is unfair and uncharitable.

by scott_s 11y ago

nickpsecurity 11y ago
He claimed to want an investment into his business with many specific possible uses. After many gripes here and there, they caved to give it to him. He gave it to a charity. Promise one thing for cash and do another involved is the basic definition of fraud. Only difference is they went along with it to right a wrong. Had he not entered, money would've possibly gone to a startup doing exactly what they promised they'd do.
- scott_s 11y ago
  All parties are okay with the outcome; I find it reasonable that the week's drama changed people's desires. Calling it "fraudulent" is, to me, given that no one feels harmed, both inaccurate and unfair.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    That's one way of looking at it. The comments and feed make me think his desire was always to troll them rather than invest in his business. I doubt it really changed. Fraud or not, giving him the money was a waste vs somebody that would do what they said. I'd have apologized then been honest about why I'd not pay him. Something along lines of "He's probably trolling us and will just give it to charity or something. Doesn't really need it for his business." If I had the foresight.
    - jon-wood 11y ago
      This is a major VC we're talking about here, it's not like they just gave their last $20k to charity and some other company won't get into YCF because of it.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Of course not. It just a question of whether money for a startup competition is better off going to startups for their business development or charities. I was thinking the former. YC can do as much charity as they like. I'd just give them the thumbs up for their generosity. Note that I'm critiquing Maciej here, not YC.
        scott_s 11y ago
        I think the reason you're getting downvoted is that both parties reconciled, and now they seem to want to move past it. Your comments, however, run counter to moving on.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        I agree. I kept discussing it because people replied. Otherwise, I'd have been done after first round of comments.

I think "fraudulent" is unfair and uncharitable.

by scott_s 11y ago

I think "fraudulent" is unfair and uncharitable.

He claimed to want an investment into his business with many specific possible uses. After many gripes here and there, they caved to give it to him. He gave it to a charity. Promise one thing for cash and do another involved is the basic definition of fraud. Only difference is they went along with it to right a wrong. Had he not entered, money would've possibly gone to a startup doing exactly what they promised they'd do.

scott_s 11y ago
All parties are okay with the outcome; I find it reasonable that the week's drama changed people's desires. Calling it "fraudulent" is, to me, given that no one feels harmed, both inaccurate and unfair.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  That's one way of looking at it. The comments and feed make me think his desire was always to troll them rather than invest in his business. I doubt it really changed. Fraud or not, giving him the money was a waste vs somebody that would do what they said. I'd have apologized then been honest about why I'd not pay him. Something along lines of "He's probably trolling us and will just give it to charity or something. Doesn't really need it for his business." If I had the foresight.
  - jon-wood 11y ago
    This is a major VC we're talking about here, it's not like they just gave their last $20k to charity and some other company won't get into YCF because of it.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Of course not. It just a question of whether money for a startup competition is better off going to startups for their business development or charities. I was thinking the former. YC can do as much charity as they like. I'd just give them the thumbs up for their generosity. Note that I'm critiquing Maciej here, not YC.
      - scott_s 11y ago
        I think the reason you're getting downvoted is that both parties reconciled, and now they seem to want to move past it. Your comments, however, run counter to moving on.
        nickpsecurity 11y ago
        I agree. I kept discussing it because people replied. Otherwise, I'd have been done after first round of comments.