6 ms·

In that case, I am really confused about what the point that's being made here is. > If a state-backed investor invests in your company, and you don't know abo

In that case, I am really confused about what the point that's being made here is. > If a state-backed investor invests in your company, and you don't know about it, that's cause for alarm in itself. Is the only difference between today and yesterday is that yesterday there was no direct evidence that rich people associated ("backed by", "working in" - I am not sure what terminology you prefer to suggest nefariousness) with the Kremlin gave Milner cash to invest? If that's the concern, then, once again - anyone who believed yesterday that Milner was not $funded (once again, insert preferred terminology) at least partially by the Kremlin is an idiot. All they had to do was ask someone who is an immigrant from the Soviet Union.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> anyone who believed yesterday that Milner was not $funded (once again, insert preferred terminology) by the Kremlin is an idiot Then more of us are idiots than you give credit for :). At the very least, I was an idiot and pg was an idiot [1][2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3143894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3143894 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3144475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3144475
- smsm42 9y ago
  I have very hard time smart man as pg doesn't know how Russian money works. However, he may also be smart enough to not discuss his investor's affairs in public under his own name.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  PG likely had a pretty good idea where the money came from (i.e. Russian mobsters/oligarchs with direct ties to Putin). But you don’t get to be a big-time VC by turning down giant piles of shady foreign money.
- postramus 9y ago
  Without making any specific accusation I would simply point out that the user with whom you have been conversing is present in [1] and playing the “it’s no big deal” card even then.
  - dang 9y ago
    This crosses into personal attack, even though you don't specify what you're insinuating. That breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you to be civil and assume good faith, so please don't comment like this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - postramus 9y ago
      Fair enough but on a site inhabited by intelligent, skeptical people it’s hard to follow those rules when the topic has become “was pg being disingenuous, willfully blind, or simply naive on that day, 6 years ago, when he announced partnership with his mysterious Russian money man?”
      - dang 9y ago
        It's always hard to follow those rules, most of all when a topic activates one, and we all get activated by something. It happens to hundreds if not thousands of HN users every day (including yours truly on a good measure of those days). Self-restraint is required at such moments. We all need to contribute our share of this if we want HN to survive as a place for substantive discussion.
- YuriNiyazov 9y ago
  Are you suggesting that the uncovered transactions are evidence of money laundering? The best response to that would be this [1] from that same thread. It's not money laundering if it's just how post-Soviet laissez-faire capitalism does things. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3144520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3144520
- YuriNiyazov 9y ago
  @postramus - Yes I am. Because it's not.
  - postramus 9y ago
    Can you clarify something? You seem to be arguing two points without differentiating them clearly. One point is that it should be obvious where the money came from (etc); the other point is that that origin should not be cause for concern. Is that accurate? If so I would agree with you on the first point but not the second: the same logic that eg allows one to make the inferences in the first point would also lead one to infer certain things about Yandex (analogous to the situation with Kaspersky). Do you honestly think that the funding under discussion—and the personal relationships that subsequently developed—had no impact on either Twitter or Facebook deciding to establish their respective partnerships with Yandex?
    - smsm42 9y ago
      > One point is that it should be obvious where the money came from Depending on how you qualify "where". The specific way the money got there can be very complicated. The answer to the question "is that connected to Putin's interests somehow" is not - it is always "yes" given the source is in Russia and the sum is large enough. > the other point is that that origin should not be cause for concern. That is very subjective question. Some are ok with foreigners with questionable records (Chinese, petro-monarchies, Russians, etc.) investing in US economy. Some are worried about it. It is a personal choice. But there's no law preventing such people from buying any stock offered to public or entering into any investment deal they'd like, so this is a normal thing to happen. And it happens literally all the time. > Do you honestly think that the funding under discussion—and the personal relationships that subsequently developed—had no impact on either Twitter or Facebook deciding to establish their respective partnerships with Yandex? I don't see how we could have any idea about whether it did. Certainly, common investors can influence decisions, but Twitter and Facebook have various investors, with varied interests, so why would you think this particular deal is only influenced by one of them?
    - YuriNiyazov 9y ago
virtuabhi 9y ago
> In that case, I am really confused about what the point that's being made here is. I think you are being intentionally ignorant. Maybe you have rationalized that it doesn't matter if the money comes from authoritarian regimes because it pays your bills.
- YuriNiyazov 9y ago
  There's no response to your statement that would lead anywhere. I believe that every American VC fund has objectionable limited partners even when they are not authoritarian regimes and no VC-funded company has clean money coming in. All those Monsanto and Goldman pension funds have to be parked somewhere. The obvious response is that I am deflecting or that "two wrongs don't make a right" or something like that. The only implication would be that I rationalized away all ethics by working in the industry.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> anyone who believed yesterday that Milner was not $funded (once again, insert preferred terminology) by the Kremlin is an idiot Then more of us are idiots than you give credit for :). At the very least, I was an idiot and pg was an idiot [1][2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3143894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3143894 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3144475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3144475

smsm42 9y ago
I have very hard time smart man as pg doesn't know how Russian money works. However, he may also be smart enough to not discuss his investor's affairs in public under his own name.
jacobolus 9y ago
PG likely had a pretty good idea where the money came from (i.e. Russian mobsters/oligarchs with direct ties to Putin). But you don’t get to be a big-time VC by turning down giant piles of shady foreign money.
postramus 9y ago
Without making any specific accusation I would simply point out that the user with whom you have been conversing is present in [1] and playing the “it’s no big deal” card even then.
- dang 9y ago
  This crosses into personal attack, even though you don't specify what you're insinuating. That breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you to be civil and assume good faith, so please don't comment like this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - postramus 9y ago
    Fair enough but on a site inhabited by intelligent, skeptical people it’s hard to follow those rules when the topic has become “was pg being disingenuous, willfully blind, or simply naive on that day, 6 years ago, when he announced partnership with his mysterious Russian money man?”
    - dang 9y ago
      It's always hard to follow those rules, most of all when a topic activates one, and we all get activated by something. It happens to hundreds if not thousands of HN users every day (including yours truly on a good measure of those days). Self-restraint is required at such moments. We all need to contribute our share of this if we want HN to survive as a place for substantive discussion.
YuriNiyazov 9y ago
Are you suggesting that the uncovered transactions are evidence of money laundering? The best response to that would be this [1] from that same thread. It's not money laundering if it's just how post-Soviet laissez-faire capitalism does things. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3144520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3144520
YuriNiyazov 9y ago
@postramus - Yes I am. Because it's not.
- postramus 9y ago
  Can you clarify something? You seem to be arguing two points without differentiating them clearly. One point is that it should be obvious where the money came from (etc); the other point is that that origin should not be cause for concern. Is that accurate? If so I would agree with you on the first point but not the second: the same logic that eg allows one to make the inferences in the first point would also lead one to infer certain things about Yandex (analogous to the situation with Kaspersky). Do you honestly think that the funding under discussion—and the personal relationships that subsequently developed—had no impact on either Twitter or Facebook deciding to establish their respective partnerships with Yandex?
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > One point is that it should be obvious where the money came from Depending on how you qualify "where". The specific way the money got there can be very complicated. The answer to the question "is that connected to Putin's interests somehow" is not - it is always "yes" given the source is in Russia and the sum is large enough. > the other point is that that origin should not be cause for concern. That is very subjective question. Some are ok with foreigners with questionable records (Chinese, petro-monarchies, Russians, etc.) investing in US economy. Some are worried about it. It is a personal choice. But there's no law preventing such people from buying any stock offered to public or entering into any investment deal they'd like, so this is a normal thing to happen. And it happens literally all the time. > Do you honestly think that the funding under discussion—and the personal relationships that subsequently developed—had no impact on either Twitter or Facebook deciding to establish their respective partnerships with Yandex? I don't see how we could have any idea about whether it did. Certainly, common investors can influence decisions, but Twitter and Facebook have various investors, with varied interests, so why would you think this particular deal is only influenced by one of them?
  - YuriNiyazov 9y ago

virtuabhi 9y ago

> In that case, I am really confused about what the point that's being made here is. I think you are being intentionally ignorant. Maybe you have rationalized that it doesn't matter if the money comes from authoritarian regimes because it pays your bills.

YuriNiyazov 9y ago
There's no response to your statement that would lead anywhere. I believe that every American VC fund has objectionable limited partners even when they are not authoritarian regimes and no VC-funded company has clean money coming in. All those Monsanto and Goldman pension funds have to be parked somewhere. The obvious response is that I am deflecting or that "two wrongs don't make a right" or something like that. The only implication would be that I rationalized away all ethics by working in the industry.