Honestly the much more powerful effect to check that an entrepreneur is acting in an investor's interest is the entrepreneur's reputation. It counts for a lot h

Honestly the much more powerful effect to check that an entrepreneur is acting in an investor's interest is the entrepreneur's reputation. It counts for a lot here in Silicon Valley. The compliance requirements are effectively a tax on acquisitions. We're only better off with this tax if it prevents more damage than it costs to enforce. The enforcement cost is not just on everyone's time, but it also effectively restricts their available decisions in unanticipated ways (for example wanting to ensure that there's appearance of compliance with the law). It's clearly costing Instagram/Facebook to comply, can anyone point to a case where having this regulation helped/would have helped an investor and therefore was a good thing? I don't know why, but it seems like there's a pro-bureaucracy mindset on HN. People seem to be supportive of rules as long as there's a coherent reason for them without questioning if the rule is a net negative. Can someone explain this to me?