[femto113]

There's an entire industry of companies that perform background checks, this is not a novel problem. You can also require potential investors to sign a contract that they've never committed harassment, list any times they've been accused of harassment, entered into a confidential settlement, etc. with some significant penalty if they're caught lying.

[beat]

Unless that "significant penalty" includes somehow removing that VC from the company's cap table without harming the company, then the cure might be worse than the disease.

Imagine the havoc that could be caused by a publicly shamed VC with a board seat and a 10% chunk of the company. And, as we learned from the tale of Peter Thiel and Gawker, one of the advantages of being a billionaire is you can afford to squander millions of dollars on petty vengeance.

[femto113]

The point is to screen out these people before they get to the investment stage. The scenario you describe is as likely (or even more likely) to happen with the system YC just put in place, since it will take at least two reports to trigger any consequences.

[beat]

Unfortunately, in many cases, those VCs are already on the cap tables of founders that could report. So it's a problem.

Two reports triggering an exclusion from YC demos and rounds would be a strong incentive. But one report leading to an inquiry from YC might prevent incidents in the future, too, for fear of losing a key deal flow.

[beat]

As an aside, it really pisses me off to see your comments getting downvoted here. You're saying valuable, important things.

This is what a hostile environment looks like, guys.