He's diddling the CEO of his main investment; Michelle Ritter of Steel Perlot.
He's a fucking creep who got lucky and was in the right place at the right time, just like most tech oligarchs we all bow to, like Musk, Larry and Sergey, Zuckerberg, or Dorsey.
I'm identifying this as whinging without an actual complaint. Some people are lucky, and putting his girlfriend in charge of something is unimpressive but also unobjectionable in the main.
I don't see it. Run me through how this is a conflict of interests; ie who is it in conflict with.
Forbes is suggesting he fronted all the money and put his girlfriend in charge. While I wouldn't call that the highest-success strategy, it doesn't seem like a conflict. Presumably she is competent enough and I don't see anyone involved complaining. Did I miss something in the article?
It isn't a conflict of interest to appoint someone close to you to be CEO. It might be nepotism (read: is), but if someone fronted $100 million to some group then they get to engage in a little nepotism if they think it is a good idea. It is like a small businessman installing his son as 2IC; it isn't a cerebral choice but it is unproblematic.
And Google was a pretty unsafe bet.
It's easy to say in hindsight that these people were lucky but at the time most of the founders you list made bets that were pretty unorthodox.