9 ms·

All Here founder's arrest shows it's easy for startups to scam investors

53 points by uladzislau 2y ago

Mick_Doohan 2y ago
It’s a regular Tuesday. Just look at how “Spac King” Chamath Palihapitiya scammed millions out of investors.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I still think most VCs will feel that super thorough verification isn't necessary, and in retrospect I agree: 1. Cases like the All Here example are kinda baffling to me. It's like the founder jumped out of a window without a parachute and was like "This is fine! I'll learn to fly before I hit the ground." I think in cases that are as egregious as this, the fraud is eventually discovered, if only because at some point it has to become blatantly obvious. 2. If by some miracle the fraudulent founder does manage to "make it" before their "fake it" is discovered, well then, honestly good for them I guess. VCs tend not to get too angry if you make them a ton of money. Point being, in cases like this All Here one, the "Frank" company fraud by CEO Charlie Javice, Theranos, etc. were all examples that were pretty much guaranteed to be discovered at some point (and pretty soon at that), because none of their tech had any hope of working in the first place. As an analogy, it's also pretty easy to write bad checks, but they're also likely to be discovered very quickly, with the check scammer going to jail, so banks just consider it the cost of doing business.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > It's like the founder jumped out of a window without a parachute and was like "This is fine! I'll learn to fly before I hit the ground." I think in cases that are as egregious as this, the fraud is eventually discovered, if only because at some point it has to become blatantly obvious. I think their goal was to use false figures to attract investment that would lead to real revenue that would eventually cover up the alleged fraud. If they managed to build a good product and find market fit and revenue with their Series A funds, maybe it would have worked. What’s weird though is that all these investors didn’t do basic diligence to confirm the money flows that were claimed. It’s a bit different from the Theranos fraud, where the fraud was around the effectiveness of a highly complicated and secretive product rather than revenues that are easy to confirm with bank statements.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    > It’s a bit different from the Theranos fraud, where the fraud was around the effectiveness of a highly complicated and secretive product rather than revenues that are easy to confirm with bank statements. Anyone who did the bare minimum of due diligence found out from experts that blood from finger pricks is not usable for the kind of diagnostics they were proposing, which is why no qualified biotech VC invested in them. It was all dumb money like Ruper Murdoch and tech investors Tim Draper/DFJ who have no idea what they're doing in biotech. Investors didn't even need to look in the books or research, it prima facie was not going to work.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Anyone who did the bare minimum of due diligence found out from experts that blood from finger pricks is not usable for the kind of diagnostics they were proposing This is technical risk, however. I remember experts telling me in 2009 that SpaceX was fundamentally fucked. Financial fraud is way more black and white because it’s backward looking.
      - throwup238 2y ago
        Just because some tech investors got caught up in the hype doesn’t mean it was a real technical risk. Finger capillary blood is fundamentally unrepresentative of blood samples taken from veins with few exceptions. Doctors and scientists have known this for a long time. Theranos’ technology was never going to work the way they sold it, and if they sold it as a faster on-site diagnostic device with standard blood draws they would have been just another in a sea of diagnostics startups that few care about.
      - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
        > I remember experts telling me in 2009 that SpaceX was fundamentally fucked. That is a very poor analogy to Theranos' situation. In SpaceX's case, there is obviously nothing fundamentally impossible about using rockets to get stuff into space - humans have obviously been doing that for quite some time now. I'm guessing the experts you talked to were more making economic arguments, or making arguments that the stuff SpaceX was proposing doing would be too phenomenally difficult before the money ran out. That's very, very different from "physically impossible". Getting accurate quantitative tests from finger pricks is not "technical risk". It is physically impossible because capillary blood is simply not homogeneous enough at the proposed volumes. There was literally nothing of value that came out of any of Theranos' technology - it wasn't just a case of them not reaching sustainability before their runway ran out.
- nikanj 2y ago
  It's usually "This is fine! We'll use $BUZZWORD to fly before I hit the ground." I still remember the countless startups where the business model was basically "You give us money by the boatload, and we promise to use the word blockchain in every presentation"
  - DonHopkins 2y ago
    That makes sense, because they're just laundering the money, by definition.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > they're just laundering the money, by definition By definition, no. You need "money obtained from illicit activities" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering
- khuey 2y ago
  > 2. If by some miracle the fraudulent founder does manage to "make it" before their "fake it" is discovered, well then, honestly good for them I guess. VCs tend not to get too angry if you make them a ton of money. For obvious reasons relating to perverse incentives "making it after faking it" doesn't get you out of legal jeopardy. None of Martin Shkreli's investors ultimately lost money but he still went to prison and had enormous fines imposed.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
- StressedDev 2y ago
  You stated that "It looks like a lot of absolutely basic due diligence from investors was skipped, probably due to the prioritization of DEI initiatives and willingness to support them blindly." Do you have any proof that due diligence was skipped? Also, due diligence will not catch every fraud.
  - vkou 2y ago
    No, but the great thing about a company collapsing into fraud is that anyone can bring out their favorite whipping horse for the reasons why.
  - kiba 2y ago
    I don't think venture capital are known to be discerning about what they invested in. They will dump money and follow industry trends just like everyone else. DEI initiatives are just excuses for doing a bad job. They would have done a bad job anyway.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    I don’t have proof, since I don’t have visibility into the company or their investors. I’m speculating based on the kind of things that are typically done to verify things before finalizing an investment. For example from the DOJ release we know millions in revenue were claimed but the actual revenue was only $11000. They also lied about the cash on hand, which is easy to confirm, and the customers they had. None of the investors checked to confirm the contracts with the biggest school district partnerships they claimed either, it would appear. These are typical things to explicitly confirm in due diligence.
- User23 2y ago
  > I’m still not sure how that sort of discrimination is legal, but here we are. It's still an open question whether or not the civil rights act protects whites or not (that is, are they a protected class). That's not flamebait, although I realize it's a spicy observation. Regardless, there is a real question around the legislative intent when the law was passed and in ordinary jurisprudence laws are interpreted through that lens, among other factors.
freddealmeida 2y ago
Most solid firms, like my own, have strong financial controls, a CFO, and a board with strong oversight. Absolutely never had a problem. If you are going to build a startup, build a board, get your finances in control and very transparent to investors. Fraud will never be gone but you can ensure your firm will never be accused of it.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Most solid firms, like my own, have strong financial controls, a CFO, and a board with strong oversight One of my takeaways from the chaos surrounding SVB’s collapse is that Silicon Valley is starved of CFOs. Part of this is due to the anti-MBA high horse that was in vogue in tech post financial crisis. Part, frankly, is VCs wanting to be the only financial brains in the house. (Guess who loves promoting the MBA myths? Despite being staffed by MBAs?)
  - conductr 2y ago
    As a CFO, VCs definitely don’t like other financial brains and they’re generally miserable to work with has been my experience Their problem is they want the financials to track to their financial models despite their entire investment thesis being an opportunistic wonderland of assumptions. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have met someone’s imaginary return threshold.
  - nikanj 2y ago
    If you have the financial aptitude to become a CFO, would you rather eat ramen in a flophouse or make proper money in an investment bank?
    - FreakLegion 2y ago
      I'd join successful startups planning to IPO within a few years and be the one to take them public. Look at the background of Stripe's current CFO for an example. He did Aruba Networks, Palo Alto Networks, Confluent, and soon Stripe.
    - 2y ago
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
“usually via small wire transfers via PayPal or Zelle” Come on Axios…
- syspec 2y ago
  What's? What's wrong with it?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > What's? What's wrong with it? While you technically can send and receive wires from your PayPal account, most transfers on PayPal are done via PayPal. Zelle, meanwhile, doesn't support wires--it's a totally separate payment rail. "Wires" in America means Fedwire, a specific rail. (Globally, it means a widely-used real-time gross-settlement funds-transfer rail.) "Wire transfer via...Zelle" is nonsense.
bradley13 2y ago
Somewhat related: I find the concept of "pivoting" pretty ridiculous: "Here's our start-up, our idea doesn't work. Let's do something completely different before our funding runs out!"
- paxys 2y ago
  Early stage investors are funding founders, not products. It's very rare for an idea to work out exactly how it was intended from the get go. I'd wager most/all successful companies are a product of multiple pivots in their early years.
  - ulfw 2y ago
    Which is complete bullshit considering it's impossible to get funding unless you have a team, a product and already traction/customers/sales nowadays. But sure. If you're super well connected and your buddies fund you...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- seizethecheese 2y ago
  PayPal famously raised money then immediately pivoted. It sometimes works out.
- two_handfuls 2y ago
  I mean, would you rather continue doing what isn't working? Most pivots are to a related idea though.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > I find the concept of "pivoting" pretty ridiculous I find special relativity ridiculous, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
paxys 2y ago
This is pretty much a guarantee when VC funding is driven by FOMO rather than fundamentals. If anything I'm surprised by how such few founders end up in handcuffs.
habosa 2y ago
The Forbes 30 under 30 to prison pipeline continues its excellent run.
- mrandish 2y ago
  Maybe it should be called the "Forbes 30 under 30 doing 30"?
  - DonHopkins 2y ago
    Now that he's older and wiser, Jack Weinberg should revise his famous quote to: "Don't trust anyone on 30 under 30." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Weinberg#%22Don't_trust_anyone_over_30%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Weinberg#%22Don't_trust_a...
testfoobar 2y ago
At what level of $$ investment do angel investors, Silicon Valley VCs and/or boards expect professional, periodic audits? This is what I personally want to see in non profit board meetings: cash flow, headcount, categorized expenses and a balance sheet. I also want to see a copy of a bank account statement attached to the board docs validating the cash flow numbers. This is not a proper audit - but this builds a paper trail where the CEO is snap shotting an org's financial health in writing at a period in time. What does a VC who has invested $8M expect in terms of audit?
- _gmax0 2y ago
  Ostensibly this roostful homecoming is a result of increasing capital costs.
max_ 2y ago
The truth about raising VC money is that it's mostly about deception. If you don't deceive, other people who engage in deception will be funded instead of you. Alot of VCs actually admit to this indirectly. They say for example the role of a pitch deck is to "Get the VC excited". If you talk about real, boring numbers? (early stage businesses must have boring numbers or they are actually not "early stage". How can you make millions of dollars and continue to call yourself "early stage") you will be ignored. It's about like dating. If a woman wants to get attention from men. A rational man would look for features like trust worthiness, commitment, love, he cooking skills etc. But women know that to get most men's attention it's usually about having a fake silicone butt, fake exposed cleavages, fake pouty lips, fake hair and make up. Deceptive women definitely get more attention from men than natural undeceptive women. We shouldn't be surprised that in VC investors are biased to fall for deception from fraudulent start-up founders. Instead of real founders that don't have Juicy metrics.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Alot of VCs actually admit to this indirectly Did they say this at a secret VC party? Or did you hear someone praising chutzpah and hear that as fraud?
  - max_ 2y ago
    They said it on a podcast. I have even read documents on blogs by law firms close to VCs & tech firms that describe pitch decks as a "hook" — as in like the bait used to catch a fish.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > They said it on a podcast Let me guess, All In? They make money on eyeballs. Their job is to be provocative, irrespective of the truth (or their track records in VC). > describe pitch decks as a "hook" — as in like the bait used to catch a fish “Hooking” customers is a common sales analogy. Particular when you’re playing a numbers game, where the individual characteristics matter less than the yield. Like in fishing.
Joel_Mckay 2y ago
I'm shocked... =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vIBijzg4w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vIBijzg4w
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42284092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42284092
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
No Javascript; https://web.archive.org/web/20241127233849if_/https://www.axios.com/2024/11/27/allhere-founder-arrest-startups-scam-investors https://web.archive.org/web/20241127233849if_/https://www.ax...
kazinator 2y ago
All Here founder getting away with it would more convincingly show that it's easy.
bella014 2y ago
[dead]
rowancarson 2y ago
[dead]

53 points by uladzislau 2y ago

It’s a regular Tuesday. Just look at how “Spac King” Chamath Palihapitiya scammed millions out of investors.

I still think most VCs will feel that super thorough verification isn't necessary, and in retrospect I agree: 1. Cases like the All Here example are kinda baffling to me. It's like the founder jumped out of a window without a parachute and was like "This is fine! I'll learn to fly before I hit the ground." I think in cases that are as egregious as this, the fraud is eventually discovered, if only because at some point it has to become blatantly obvious. 2. If by some miracle the fraudulent founder does manage to "make it" before their "fake it" is discovered, well then, honestly good for them I guess. VCs tend not to get too angry if you make them a ton of money. Point being, in cases like this All Here one, the "Frank" company fraud by CEO Charlie Javice, Theranos, etc. were all examples that were pretty much guaranteed to be discovered at some point (and pretty soon at that), because none of their tech had any hope of working in the first place. As an analogy, it's also pretty easy to write bad checks, but they're also likely to be discovered very quickly, with the check scammer going to jail, so banks just consider it the cost of doing business.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> It's like the founder jumped out of a window without a parachute and was like "This is fine! I'll learn to fly before I hit the ground." I think in cases that are as egregious as this, the fraud is eventually discovered, if only because at some point it has to become blatantly obvious. I think their goal was to use false figures to attract investment that would lead to real revenue that would eventually cover up the alleged fraud. If they managed to build a good product and find market fit and revenue with their Series A funds, maybe it would have worked. What’s weird though is that all these investors didn’t do basic diligence to confirm the money flows that were claimed. It’s a bit different from the Theranos fraud, where the fraud was around the effectiveness of a highly complicated and secretive product rather than revenues that are easy to confirm with bank statements.
- throwup238 2y ago
  > It’s a bit different from the Theranos fraud, where the fraud was around the effectiveness of a highly complicated and secretive product rather than revenues that are easy to confirm with bank statements. Anyone who did the bare minimum of due diligence found out from experts that blood from finger pricks is not usable for the kind of diagnostics they were proposing, which is why no qualified biotech VC invested in them. It was all dumb money like Ruper Murdoch and tech investors Tim Draper/DFJ who have no idea what they're doing in biotech. Investors didn't even need to look in the books or research, it prima facie was not going to work.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Anyone who did the bare minimum of due diligence found out from experts that blood from finger pricks is not usable for the kind of diagnostics they were proposing This is technical risk, however. I remember experts telling me in 2009 that SpaceX was fundamentally fucked. Financial fraud is way more black and white because it’s backward looking.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      Just because some tech investors got caught up in the hype doesn’t mean it was a real technical risk. Finger capillary blood is fundamentally unrepresentative of blood samples taken from veins with few exceptions. Doctors and scientists have known this for a long time. Theranos’ technology was never going to work the way they sold it, and if they sold it as a faster on-site diagnostic device with standard blood draws they would have been just another in a sea of diagnostics startups that few care about.
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      > I remember experts telling me in 2009 that SpaceX was fundamentally fucked. That is a very poor analogy to Theranos' situation. In SpaceX's case, there is obviously nothing fundamentally impossible about using rockets to get stuff into space - humans have obviously been doing that for quite some time now. I'm guessing the experts you talked to were more making economic arguments, or making arguments that the stuff SpaceX was proposing doing would be too phenomenally difficult before the money ran out. That's very, very different from "physically impossible". Getting accurate quantitative tests from finger pricks is not "technical risk". It is physically impossible because capillary blood is simply not homogeneous enough at the proposed volumes. There was literally nothing of value that came out of any of Theranos' technology - it wasn't just a case of them not reaching sustainability before their runway ran out.
nikanj 2y ago
It's usually "This is fine! We'll use $BUZZWORD to fly before I hit the ground." I still remember the countless startups where the business model was basically "You give us money by the boatload, and we promise to use the word blockchain in every presentation"
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  That makes sense, because they're just laundering the money, by definition.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > they're just laundering the money, by definition By definition, no. You need "money obtained from illicit activities" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering
khuey 2y ago
> 2. If by some miracle the fraudulent founder does manage to "make it" before their "fake it" is discovered, well then, honestly good for them I guess. VCs tend not to get too angry if you make them a ton of money. For obvious reasons relating to perverse incentives "making it after faking it" doesn't get you out of legal jeopardy. None of Martin Shkreli's investors ultimately lost money but he still went to prison and had enormous fines imposed.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

[flagged]

StressedDev 2y ago
You stated that "It looks like a lot of absolutely basic due diligence from investors was skipped, probably due to the prioritization of DEI initiatives and willingness to support them blindly." Do you have any proof that due diligence was skipped? Also, due diligence will not catch every fraud.
- vkou 2y ago
  No, but the great thing about a company collapsing into fraud is that anyone can bring out their favorite whipping horse for the reasons why.
- kiba 2y ago
  I don't think venture capital are known to be discerning about what they invested in. They will dump money and follow industry trends just like everyone else. DEI initiatives are just excuses for doing a bad job. They would have done a bad job anyway.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  I don’t have proof, since I don’t have visibility into the company or their investors. I’m speculating based on the kind of things that are typically done to verify things before finalizing an investment. For example from the DOJ release we know millions in revenue were claimed but the actual revenue was only $11000. They also lied about the cash on hand, which is easy to confirm, and the customers they had. None of the investors checked to confirm the contracts with the biggest school district partnerships they claimed either, it would appear. These are typical things to explicitly confirm in due diligence.
User23 2y ago
> I’m still not sure how that sort of discrimination is legal, but here we are. It's still an open question whether or not the civil rights act protects whites or not (that is, are they a protected class). That's not flamebait, although I realize it's a spicy observation. Regardless, there is a real question around the legislative intent when the law was passed and in ordinary jurisprudence laws are interpreted through that lens, among other factors.

freddealmeida 2y ago

Most solid firms, like my own, have strong financial controls, a CFO, and a board with strong oversight. Absolutely never had a problem. If you are going to build a startup, build a board, get your finances in control and very transparent to investors. Fraud will never be gone but you can ensure your firm will never be accused of it.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Most solid firms, like my own, have strong financial controls, a CFO, and a board with strong oversight One of my takeaways from the chaos surrounding SVB’s collapse is that Silicon Valley is starved of CFOs. Part of this is due to the anti-MBA high horse that was in vogue in tech post financial crisis. Part, frankly, is VCs wanting to be the only financial brains in the house. (Guess who loves promoting the MBA myths? Despite being staffed by MBAs?)
- conductr 2y ago
  As a CFO, VCs definitely don’t like other financial brains and they’re generally miserable to work with has been my experience Their problem is they want the financials to track to their financial models despite their entire investment thesis being an opportunistic wonderland of assumptions. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have met someone’s imaginary return threshold.
- nikanj 2y ago
  If you have the financial aptitude to become a CFO, would you rather eat ramen in a flophouse or make proper money in an investment bank?
  - FreakLegion 2y ago
    I'd join successful startups planning to IPO within a few years and be the one to take them public. Look at the background of Stripe's current CFO for an example. He did Aruba Networks, Palo Alto Networks, Confluent, and soon Stripe.
  - 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

“usually via small wire transfers via PayPal or Zelle” Come on Axios…

syspec 2y ago
What's? What's wrong with it?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > What's? What's wrong with it? While you technically can send and receive wires from your PayPal account, most transfers on PayPal are done via PayPal. Zelle, meanwhile, doesn't support wires--it's a totally separate payment rail. "Wires" in America means Fedwire, a specific rail. (Globally, it means a widely-used real-time gross-settlement funds-transfer rail.) "Wire transfer via...Zelle" is nonsense.

bradley13 2y ago

Somewhat related: I find the concept of "pivoting" pretty ridiculous: "Here's our start-up, our idea doesn't work. Let's do something completely different before our funding runs out!"

paxys 2y ago
Early stage investors are funding founders, not products. It's very rare for an idea to work out exactly how it was intended from the get go. I'd wager most/all successful companies are a product of multiple pivots in their early years.
- ulfw 2y ago
  Which is complete bullshit considering it's impossible to get funding unless you have a team, a product and already traction/customers/sales nowadays. But sure. If you're super well connected and your buddies fund you...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
seizethecheese 2y ago
PayPal famously raised money then immediately pivoted. It sometimes works out.
two_handfuls 2y ago
I mean, would you rather continue doing what isn't working? Most pivots are to a related idea though.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> I find the concept of "pivoting" pretty ridiculous I find special relativity ridiculous, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

paxys 2y ago

This is pretty much a guarantee when VC funding is driven by FOMO rather than fundamentals. If anything I'm surprised by how such few founders end up in handcuffs.

habosa 2y ago

The Forbes 30 under 30 to prison pipeline continues its excellent run.

mrandish 2y ago
Maybe it should be called the "Forbes 30 under 30 doing 30"?
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  Now that he's older and wiser, Jack Weinberg should revise his famous quote to: "Don't trust anyone on 30 under 30." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Weinberg#%22Don't_trust_anyone_over_30%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Weinberg#%22Don't_trust_a...

testfoobar 2y ago

At what level of $$ investment do angel investors, Silicon Valley VCs and/or boards expect professional, periodic audits? This is what I personally want to see in non profit board meetings: cash flow, headcount, categorized expenses and a balance sheet. I also want to see a copy of a bank account statement attached to the board docs validating the cash flow numbers. This is not a proper audit - but this builds a paper trail where the CEO is snap shotting an org's financial health in writing at a period in time. What does a VC who has invested $8M expect in terms of audit?

_gmax0 2y ago
Ostensibly this roostful homecoming is a result of increasing capital costs.

max_ 2y ago

The truth about raising VC money is that it's mostly about deception. If you don't deceive, other people who engage in deception will be funded instead of you. Alot of VCs actually admit to this indirectly. They say for example the role of a pitch deck is to "Get the VC excited". If you talk about real, boring numbers? (early stage businesses must have boring numbers or they are actually not "early stage". How can you make millions of dollars and continue to call yourself "early stage") you will be ignored. It's about like dating. If a woman wants to get attention from men. A rational man would look for features like trust worthiness, commitment, love, he cooking skills etc. But women know that to get most men's attention it's usually about having a fake silicone butt, fake exposed cleavages, fake pouty lips, fake hair and make up. Deceptive women definitely get more attention from men than natural undeceptive women. We shouldn't be surprised that in VC investors are biased to fall for deception from fraudulent start-up founders. Instead of real founders that don't have Juicy metrics.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Alot of VCs actually admit to this indirectly Did they say this at a secret VC party? Or did you hear someone praising chutzpah and hear that as fraud?
- max_ 2y ago
  They said it on a podcast. I have even read documents on blogs by law firms close to VCs & tech firms that describe pitch decks as a "hook" — as in like the bait used to catch a fish.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > They said it on a podcast Let me guess, All In? They make money on eyeballs. Their job is to be provocative, irrespective of the truth (or their track records in VC). > describe pitch decks as a "hook" — as in like the bait used to catch a fish “Hooking” customers is a common sales analogy. Particular when you’re playing a numbers game, where the individual characteristics matter less than the yield. Like in fishing.

Joel_Mckay 2y ago

I'm shocked... =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vIBijzg4w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vIBijzg4w

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42284092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42284092

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

No Javascript; https://web.archive.org/web/20241127233849if_/https://www.axios.com/2024/11/27/allhere-founder-arrest-startups-scam-investors https://web.archive.org/web/20241127233849if_/https://www.ax...

kazinator 2y ago

All Here founder getting away with it would more convincingly show that it's easy.

bella014 2y ago

[dead]

rowancarson 2y ago

[dead]