[bilalq]

While I do think Delve and the leadership there should be held responsible, it's a bit weird to see YC and others take shots at them for breaking the law when so many of their prized unicorns achieved what they did by being willing to just ignore laws and deal with the consequences later.

[olalonde]

Working around arguably dumb regulations and making your customers happy in the process is not the same as defrauding your customers.

[arionhardison]

While I agree with you, I also find myself wondering who draws the line. Given the current political atmosphere and its increasingly fluid relationship with "truth," I have to consider that the line for others may not be where it is for me — especially given the nuance buried in the details of many B2B deals.

Their value prop had to be strong enough to get past YC, past the other founders in the batch, past due diligence. Given that, I'm no longer comfortable casting "fraud" as a clean binary.

To be clear — I do genuinely believe they are a fraudulent company that lied and deserved to be removed. But introspectively, I have to sit with the fact that the space between "working around dumb regulations" and "outright fraud" is murkier than we'd like to admit.

[pm90]

The vast majority of crimes are still being prosecuted as such. You have to reach a certain size/notoriety and money to buy a POTUS pardon; I doubt that matters for a relatively unknown outfit like Delve.

[worik]

> Working around arguably dumb regulations...

...is breaking the law

[kaashif]

Yes, but there is a difference between:

1. Customers want to do something, you help them do it, but it's illegal.

2. Customers want to do something, you tell them you did it, but you were lying and defrauding them.

[miki123211]

And

3. Customers want to do something, you help them do it, and nobody has done it before, so whether it's legal or not is kind of up in the air.

E.G. Uber exploited a legal loophole that distinguished the kind of taxi service you hail on the street from the kind of taxi service you call on a phone.

The latter were much less regulated, and usually much more exclusive and pandering to a richer crowd. Nobody really knew which kind Uber should be classified as, it was the first kind in practice (same customer base as normal taxis) but the second in theory (ordered, not hailed).

[NeutralCrane]

Is there? At the end of the day both boil down to breaking the law. It’s not better to break the law because someone paid you to do so.

[kaashif]

Yes, I just described the difference.

It is clearly different because in one case you are not guilty of fraud.

Being guilty of a crime plus fraud is obviously worse than just being guilty of the crime.

Breaking the law by stealing a loaf of bread is obviously different to killing one million people but "both boil down to breaking the law" - I'm not sure that comment contains that much information.

[borski]

Ignoring a law is different from knowingly and intentionally breaking the law, especially when that law is actual intentional fraud.

Also, there was no “endgame.” They weren’t trying to change the law; they were exclusively breaking it for profit.

[bilalq]

Let me more clearly instead say that many successful startups knowingly and intentionally broke the law.

But I agree that Delve is a special case and should naturally be held to a higher standard here because their whole business is around being compliant with the law. When most other startups break the law, they do it to get an advantage over competition. Delve did it in a way that sacrificed their core value towards customers.

[redanddead]

that's defrauding the customer

this will literally get them in court

[borski]

Yeah, precisely.

[afavour]

> Ignoring a law is different from knowingly and intentionally breaking the law

This is something Airbnb has facilitated for a very long time, no? And Uber, back when it started.

From a legal perspective I don’t see that it matters whether you’re trying to change the law or not. You’re either following it or breaking it.

[borski]

Sure. Technically and legally, you’re right.

In reality, it makes quite a difference if public opinion is on your side or not.

“We decided to commit fraud by providing fake compliance reports” reads very differently from “we let homeowners make money by renting a room”

[bpodgursky]

The difference is that Airbnb customers used Airbnb because they thought hotel regulations were dumb and overbearing (or at least, they didn't care about the laws). Delve customers were literally trying to obey the law and Delve (allegedly) lied to them about it.

[jrflowers]

> Ignoring a law is different from knowingly and intentionally breaking the law

This is like a line from a Naked Gun movie. The only way that this sentence could be true linguistically is if the party doesn’t break the law that they’re ignoring (e.g. I could ignore the rule against perpetuities while drunk driving through a zoo)

[TurdF3rguson]

> Ignoring a law is different from knowingly and intentionally breaking the law

Huh? In a legal sense I'm pretty sure they're the same thing.

[borski]

I ignore the law every day when I jaywalk. Technically, you’re right that that is also breaking the law. I wasn’t being careful with my words.

How and why matters, though.

[TurdF3rguson]

> How and why matters, though.

How and why you break a law matters (to a judge / jury). Whether you frame it as "ignoring" vs "breaking" in your legal defense, not so much.

[borski]

I agree; I attempted to clarify that with my “not using words carefully” but that is a fair criticism of what I wrote.

[jrflowers]

That’s not how words work. This sentence

> I ignore the law every day when I jaywalk.

Means the exact same thing as “I intentionally break jaywalking laws every day”. They are equivalent sentences.

[borski]

I agreed with you; that is why I said I wasn’t being careful with my language.

[jrflowers]

What does that mean

[worik]

> I ignore the law every day when I jaywalk

Not illegal here, but I hope you not complain when caught and fined.

[kaashif]

Jaywalking was illegal in NYC until 2025 but literally every crossing had people doing it constantly. This is not figurative, it actually is literal.

Including people doing it in front of police. Including the police themselves!

The law only existed for police to harass and fine blacks and Latinos. And indeed, that was how it was struck down.

It is critical to a just society that victims of unjust laws or uneven enforcement complain!

[tjwebbnorfolk]

There is a difference between "fake it till you make it" and "blatant widespread fraud", but the line is blurrier than many startups would like to admit.

[HaloZero]

I think it's fairly straight forward why. It's because Delve broke the law and got other YC companies in trouble vs other industries & people not under the YC banner.

[colechristensen]

There's a sliding scale between fake it `till you make it and fraud.

[tikhonj]

Yeah, fraud is what happens when you don't make it.

[rvnx]

Laws don't apply to you if you are big enough (e.g. AI companies)

[sky2224]

Can you provide examples of YC startups that knowingly broke laws and just dealt with those issues later? I'm not very aware.

[bix6]

Airbnb, DoorDash

[antonvs]

Uber

[el_io]

Uber is not YC backed.

[nerdsniper]

Lyft, rather: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46969487

[antonvs]

Oh my context window is apparently too small

[gmerc]

The deal is to have plausible deniability and not get caught

[Pxtl]

They broke laws that programmers care about.

Like, it's a company that sells AI-slop powered regulatory compliance. How many laws do you think the "fake it ill you make it and you'll never make it" AI will break? But "regulatory compliance" is laws that startups hate, so breaking them is good.

Copyright and the copyleft licenses built upon it are the laws that support the software industry instead of just making sure innocent people aren't hurt by all this innovating and disrupting.

[MangoCoffee]

fake it until you make it? at some point this attitudes of Silicon Valley start up will back fire.

[KennyBlanken]

> At its core, this article argues that Delve fakes compliance while creating the appearance of compliance without the underlying substance.

Anderson Consulting er I mean "Accenture": "Hey, that's our job!"

PWC: "Yeah! Fuck off!"

KPMG: "Damn straight!"

Ernst & Young: "What they said."

Deloitte & Touche: "Ditto."

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_scandals#List_of_th... )