[ngangaga]

> they still shape hiring decisions, VC term sheets, and dependency choices

This is nuts to me. A star is a "like". It has carries no signal of quality and even its popularity proxy is quite weak. I can't remember the last time I looked at stars and considered them meaningful.

[rurban]

A star is more of a "follow" or "watch", because at each update shows up in my timeline then

[pkkkzip]

the difference means getting funded or not. people fake testimonials and put logos of large companies too on their saas.

some people even buy residential proxies and create accounts on communities that can steer them towards specific action like "hey lets short squeeze this company let me sell you my call option" etc.

there's no incentive to be honest, i know two founders where one cheated with fake accounts, github likes and exited. the other ultimately gave up and worked in another field.

the old saying "if you lie to those who wants to be lied to you will become wealthy" rings true.

however at the end of the day it is dishonest and money earned through deception is bad.

[ngangaga]

> the difference means getting funded or not.

This speaks more to the incompetence of VC than anything. How can you justify deploying hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on the basis of "stars"?

I have a very hard time blaming the people who pull off this scam. Money is money and taking from VCs is morally (nearly) free.