Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"endangers"

So you mean just founded startups with no revenue won't be valued at millions of dollars out of thin air then?




Indeed, it endangers only the optics - which if each higher level of VC is playing the game of optics and not sustainable value (meaning they don't actually understand the long-tail market, or they do and playing the optics game/gambling for quick money), then it certainly endangers the survival of their VC fund/company, perhaps reputation - and perhaps if they take money from the wrong people, it could endanger their own lives; what happens if you lose someone's $1-10B+ who's expecting a decent return (under shallow pretences and understanding) who's a bad actor?


It will mean ALL companies will be valued at less because there will be less money being thrown at these companies. Saudi money is all over silicon valley and early stage tech companies.


No, it would have the sideeffect of investors doing better due dilligence, which would bode well for companies with actual revenue.


While you where downvoted that’s likely somewhat true. VC’s have strong incentives to invest all their money even if it means the fund only breaks even vs turns a small profit.

In turn that drives up many costs like salaries and rent for the startup ecosystem. So, less money likely results in fewer but stronger startups.

The issue is the best returns are for more risky bets that may not be funded in such an environment.


So in the name of higher valuations we should accept criminal money? Interesting thought.


Nobody said that.


Oddly enough, it is immoral but not illegal/criminal money.


>criminal money

First of all, it's Silicon Valley. Check your ethics at the door.

Secondly, it's not illegal if it's not against the laws of a country (and in this case, if the crown prince of a monarchy orders something, that's as close to legal as it gets). You could say that it's immoral, but that's a different statement, and you shouldn't conflate "illegal" with "immoral".


>First of all, it's Silicon Valley. Check your ethics at the door.

Flip or not, this is gross.

Calling a murder not a crime because a king decreed it is mind boggling. You shouldnt conflate "illegal" with "criminal".


If a king decrees it inside an absolute monarchy, it's not a crime. That's literally how absolute monarchies work--the monarch has absolute and unaccountable power.

Edit: if you disagree, please tell me why.


I disagree because positivism is not the smartest legal theory in my view. We all know Godwin's law, but nazi crimes is probably the best example of how something done by people with absolute power was considered and persecuted as a crime.


>First of all, it's Silicon Valley. Check your ethics at the door.

No thank you. Maybe you're OK with this worldview, but I am not.


> First of all, it's Silicon Valley. Check your ethics at the door.

Why would we do that?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: