5 ms·
Show HN: 30u30.fyi – Is your startup founder on Forbes' most fraudulent list?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- dsr_ 6mo agoMore useful for most people: is the company you are considering doing business with run by one of these fine upstanding folks?
- NewsaHackO 6mo agoThis seems extremely mean spirited.
- TallGuyShort 6mo agoSome of the comments are unnecessary, but things like this: > wiping $40B and several people's life savings Okay, you shouldn't dump your life savings into a cryptocurrency that claims to be doing innovative things in the first 2 days. But if that's true that guy ruined multiple people's life's work. That's a bit mean-spirited, wouldn't you say?
- NewsaHackO 6mo agoDid you read the page? The first portion is whatever, but then it lists random founders with no record of doing anything nefarious based on a random ranking list. It's literally bullying.
- ForHackernews 6mo agoCorrect. It's abusive to apply probabilistic AI models to real human individuals and penalize them for things they haven't even done yet with no recourse. I hope you will remember this the next time your employer asks you to build an AI moderation, credit evaluation, or anti-fraud system that will harm much larger numbers of innocent people far than one mean website.
- gmd63 6mo agoTo put it into context, 40 billion dollars is about 22,000 average lifetime earnings of a man in the US.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- nutjob2 6mo agoYes, but so? It provides a modicum of balance versus relentless hype by founders and the doting media. Even if not true it might remind people to have some healthy skepticism. The fact that your reflex is to find it "extremely mean spirited" speaks volumes. Everyone else in life gets shat apron because of other people's unscrupulous behavior, why are these people special? People should assume that there is a good chance any business venture is a fraud. Ultimately it's one guy's opinion. It's not like he's going to ruin these people's lives or businesses.
- brcmthrowaway 6mo agoThe Nikola founder, and Anthony Levandowski for that matter (seems to have gone under the radar), have got to be the most egregious case of corruption and pay-for-play. It's so depressing that no one can do anything about it.
- itsankur 6mo agoLevandowski is back with TK at Atoms
- misiti3780 6mo agoit's clear now his self-driving technology was never going to work at uber.
- seamossfet 6mo agoSome of these really don't make sense. The implication that Cursor is a fraudulent company is a little weird considering they actually have real users. Like sure, is it a VS code fork with agents stapled to it? Yes. But are they on the same scale as most of the people mentioned? Ehh probably not. It reads more like a hit piece from someone with a grudge against random SF companies than anything else.
- throw03172019 6mo agoThey should have left off the last section. No reason to shame founders if no wrong doing
- reaperducer 6mo agoNo reason to shame founders if no wrong doing If there's no wrong-doing, then there's nothing of which to be ashamed.
- loloquwowndueo 6mo agoMissing /s at the end my dude.
- enoint 6mo agoWhat is a “satirical risk analysis” and am I to believe that the bottom section is built from anonymous submissions?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- throwaway85825 6mo agoIt looks like the score number is just the number of times featured multiplied by a constant.
- afavour 6mo ago> The implication that Cursor is a fraudulent company is a little weird To my reading the premise of the site is pretty straightforward: 30 Under 30 is a warning sign, not a positive signal. Therefore, as a company with 4 founders who were in 30 Under 30, Cursor is a risk. It’s a silly little satire site, there’s a danger of reading into it too deeply.
- dancerofaran 6mo agothe stupidity to this is that it takes a meme and treats it like facts yes, numerous 30u30 have committed frauds, and yes this list is a paid list. but it's also full of other people who have been duped by what this list represents. compounding memes at the expense of truth just creates more problems than it solves
- arjun810 6mo agoit’s not a paid list. Or at least it wasn’t, can’t say with certainty it didn’t change.
- buckle8017 6mo agoSome people on the list likely paid to be on it. They likely didn't pay Forbes the company though and maybe the payment was just invites to parties.
- yreg 6mo agoI know several 30u30 people in my country's list and I highly doubt they paid for anything.
- moomoo11 6mo agoI wouldn’t work for a company where the founder/ceo was younger than 35 and had zero real world experience.
- paxys 6mo agoForbes "30 under 30" actually has like 600 people a year in 20 categories, and that's just in the USA. Add in international lists and the number rises to well over 1000. Since 2011 there have probably been, what, 10-15 thousand total "honorees"? ~12 instances of fraud in total is probably significantly below the corporate average. And the "risk index" is idiotic. Basically just companies the creator doesn't like, or is jealous of.
- ForHackernews 6mo agoSome might say a list of "30" that in fact includes thousands of people every year is itself a bit fishy.
- enoint 6mo agoThere was a running total of $18.5 B in fraud from inductees. That’s about half of the size of card fraud. Maybe 2% of worldwide fraud.
- rorylawless 6mo agoIs "30 under 30" one of those schemes that require people to put themselves forward and maybe pay a fee? I've seen a bunch of "awards" (particularly for companies) that follow the same model.
- cmiles8 6mo agoIt’s amusing and bemusing how these lists have become so associated with grifters and fraudsters. It’s gotten to the point that legit folks are wanting to steer clear of them simply because of the negative stigma with being seen as an XuX grifter.
- raincole 6mo ago[flagged]
- spencerflem 6mo agoWhy do you think they’re jealous of fraudsters?
- paxys 6mo agoWhat fraud have any of the companies under "risk index" committed?
- spencerflem 6mo agoWhy do you think they’re jealous of future fraudsters? But like genuinely, this sort of take confuses me so much. It’s like, if someone made fun of Putin and the consensus was that they’re just jealous they don’t have a country of their own to run.
- nutjob2 6mo agoWhich bit of "risk index" are you not getting? Alternatively: how are you in a position to claim they're 100% not frauds?
- afavour 6mo agoI don’t know, it reads more like a “told you so” than envy to me. I don’t get the impression the author wants to be these people. “Told you so” can be quite a tranquil feeling.
- firekey_browser 6mo ago[dead]
- dwedge 6mo agoHow old is this site, because most of the reference links are dead links
- paxys 6mo agoProbably ran out of tokens halfway through
- Lerc 6mo agoWhat is a person who makes a site like this thinking about when they do it? What is their motivation? What are they trying to achieve?
- afavour 6mo agoThey’re pointing out fraud. Is that a bad thing now? I think it’s fair game to point out that the the 30 under 30 hype list is just that: hype. And there’s often very little substance underneath hype. And sometimes there’s outright deceit under it.
- AIorNot 6mo agowell why was Cursor included amongst known fraudsters.. that just seems mean and warrentless
- afavour 6mo agoIn the section that says: 100% SATIRICAL — SCORES ARE FICTIONAL AND DO NOT REFLECT REAL-WORLD FRAUD RISK ? Personally I think it’s not a bad thing to be a little skeptical about brand new companies with double digit billion dollar valuations. If they’re legit they can more than withstand a little satirical dig.
- Lerc 6mo agoI asked for an insight into their thought process and goals. The assumption that this was something bad did not come from my words but the nature of the page itself. I have encountered many instances of fraud being highlighted. Generally it is a valuable journalistic service that I have no problem with. Most don't send the message that they have a vindictive axe to grind like this one does.
- busymom0 6mo agoI think the site likely started off as a meme. However it also seems to have a bit of a "hit piece" vibe to it in the last section
- jwpapi 6mo agoIs the formula based on the actual probabilities. I’m pretty sure you could do that, but it’s not clear it it.
- spullara 6mo agopercentage wise they have more billionaires than frauds on the list, at least so far.
- lokinork 6mo ago[dead]
- lasky 6mo ago[flagged]
- reaperducer 6mo agohow is making a website like this legal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- throwaway85825 6mo agoThe european mind cannot comprehend.
- rogerkirkness 6mo agoI've met several of the people on the first few pages on the watch list, and they are among the sketchiest Silicon Valley people I've met. The criteria are plausible.
- czhu12 6mo agoWould say, the 30 under 30 list has like 600 people, not 30. So the fraud rate is quite a bit lower than headlines of seemingly 2 / 30. Its more like 2 / 600, which is maybe the baseline fraud rate?
- throwaway85825 6mo agoDoesn't matter. It's always been based on vibes, now the vibe is fraud.
- oefrha 6mo ago> Risk Index > Mercor — 3x on 30u30 Interesting, I only know this company because they’re the leading spammer hitting my inbox in the AI job board category.
- AIorNot 6mo agoI'm all for the big names and ones that have proven issues and companies like Delve to be shamed But Cursor? Why they are operating in a risky space on tech that is all new what ethical things did they do to warrent inclusion in this shame board? Lets not tarnish folks either -cancel culture is worrisome there
- AIorNot 6mo agoWe're Missing the biggest frauds of all time: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/ When your president is a complete fraud and con man, the whole country is tarnished - its too late for America to bounce back, we are in end stage capitalism now that Trump and his cronies are siphoning money out of the boundaries his administration establish -no different than Putin and his oligrachs except that America still has some protections in place..
- CobrastanJorji 6mo agoSeems like there should be an incarcerated stamp for people who were in jail for fraud but later got out, like Shkreli.
- worik 6mo agoTattooed on their forehead?
- CobrastanJorji 6mo agoI'm not saying they need to remain social pariahs. I'm saying that if you set out to collect a list of people who have doing shady things, and you are explicitly creating a category of those people who have been convicted of crimes and sent to jail, it makes little sense to break that down into "currently in jail" and "done being in jail." They are equally 30 under 30 people who were later convicted of crimes and sent to jail.
- throwaway85825 6mo agoHow about a fraud prison tat? Murderers have teardrops.
- tyre 6mo agoTo be specific, not all teardrops indicate that the person is a murderer. The teardrop is specifically in remembrance of someone else who was killed. An empty teardrop indicates the death hasn’t been avenged; a half-filled one that someone else killed the killer; and only a full teardrop means that person killed the killer.
- jacquesm 6mo agoYou see, a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
- worik 6mo ago[dead]
- YossarianFrPrez 6mo agoReactions to this are a bit curious. It's a satirical comment on how (presumably) initially well-intentioned younger founder-types get swept up in / by perverse incentives. The implication is that younger people who are still figuring out who they are and coming into their own may be more susceptible to these kinds of incentive traps. The first section that showcases the fraud that has been committed is something I have no problem with, just as I have no issue with web3isgoinggreat.com. The "at risk" section is based on a mathematical/algorithmic joke. This is explained by the "methodology" section below it, which makes it clear that the equation used to calculate "risk" here is not entirely unlike the Drake equation for the probability of extra-terrestrial life.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
- refulgentis 6mo agoI think it’s because it’s slightly obvious it was vibe(coded && written). Starts looking like low effort libel, punching down, more than some clever joke x a statistics exercise Put another way: the Drake equation, this ain’t.
- Blackthorn 6mo agoPunching down??? These people are silicon valley founders.
- afavour 6mo agoPunching down? To companies worth twenties of billions of dollars? The impulse to label everything a “startup” and thus a smolbean little guy is fascinating.
- refulgentis 6mo agoMaybe you missed the bottom section? There's plenty of comments taking umbrage at it. Alternatively, you think it's okay to make up stuff about young people because they got a seed round. That's stock-human behavior but it's not rational or kind.
- iddan 6mo agoThe regular ones are okay. The watchlist is diabolical. Unvoted as soon as I saw the watchlist.
- asdev 6mo agohalf the watchlist is literally vaporware
- sixtyj 6mo agoNice work. In section The 30u30 Risk Index there is some css bug, text is in long lines outside of boxes.
- jedberg 6mo agoThis is funny, because I know a bunch of 30 under 30s, and I've invested in a few. There is a strong overlap between 30 under 30 and YC founders. I consider myself a good judge of character, because not one of the one's I've invested in has committed fraud!
- wrsh07 6mo agoI somewhat expect that if Forbes is tracking people working on some of the trendiest / most exciting stuff and also trends attract frauds then this is sort of inevitable I don't have strong feelings about the watch list (use and like several of the products on there so not that worried about them all being frauds), and I think the concept is kind of humorous Seems easy to read the wrong way though
- jacquesm 6mo agoYou should get yourself invited into YCs inner circle then, they could do with some help in that department.
- kelnos 6mo agoThe "watchlist" made me a bit uncomfortable. I get that it's satire, but putting real people's names in a list of people you're (even jokingly) watching for fraud, and assigning a "risk factor" to them (even/especially if they acknowledge it's made up) borders on defamation in my book.
- calebjang 6mo ago[dead]
- tolerance 6mo agoWhatever period we're supposed to call the entropic stage where postmodernism and "today's modernism" intertwine, this is THAT.
- asdev 6mo agoIf you didn't know, 30 under 30 doesn't have a selection process and you can literally apply and game your way into being mentioned. I honestly love the site and the UI. Great job! Would be nice to have some kind of thing for YC founders as well
- ryguz 6mo ago[dead]
- RagnarD 6mo agoIncluding "Dropout" as some significant metric is truly idiotic. Meekly going through a university degree isn't indicative of being a paragon of virtue or success, and it's a safe bet that most higher end convicted fraudsters had a degree, probably an advanced one (i.e. the large majority of politicians in that group.)
- BenFranklin100 6mo agoI’ve been in the startup and scientific community for 25 years now and during that that time I’ve run across about two dozen 30 under 30s. Every single one with exception of two were douchebags. I think a reason it so over represented by douchebags is because the awardees — unlike McArthur winners — are very involved in the nomination process and work to game the system. https://thegenzeoclub.substack.com/p/forbes-30-under-30-nominations-dos https://thegenzeoclub.substack.com/p/forbes-30-under-30-nomi...
- ed_balls 6mo agoavoid people that need narcissistic supply at all cost.
- cindyllm 6mo ago[dead]
- zephyrwhimsy 6mo ago[flagged]
- zephyrwhimsy 6mo ago[flagged]
- zephyrwhimsy 6mo ago[flagged]
- testuser291 6mo agoInsightful site, I can see why it makes some aspirational people a bit uncomfortable. I'm sure they'll get over it though.