[jsjohnst]

> If you’re financially backing and providing direct hands on strategic guidance to an active and blatant scheme to commit securities fraud then you are doing something you should not be doing.

As you wrote it as a generic hypothetical, no, it’s not really controversial to me. If however you are meaning to say it as a passive aggressive way to accuse YC, yeah, it very much is controversial.

To not be controversial (for me anyway), you’d need to meet some burden of proof with evidence. How much would be enough to meet that burden? I’m not sure at this moment, but as you’ve presented zero that I’ve seen, I think “more than zero” is a fair starting point.

[CPLX]

By definition, a “YC Company” is given hundreds of thousands of dollars and direct hands on strategic advice on how to run the company. That’s the meaning of the concept.

The company in question has blatant securities fraud as their core business model.

QED

Here’s a logical construct in return. When people you like do unethical things they are still unethical.

[jsjohnst]

I feel like there’s a lot of leaps in your “logical construct” there.

First and foremost, did YC approve of this “core business model”? Sure, the founders got into YC, but did they pivot during the program (frequently happens)? And while YC may be on the board, they don’t have controlling interest either.

So yeah, there’s a lot of scenarios where people “you know” and/or “partner with” do unethical things, but that fact alone doesn’t mean you are unethical. You very well could be, but guilt by association isn’t enough proof here imho.