| > You should read up on what a risk retention group is and how it works. To me, it's even worse than you think. I did some basic reading but don't really see anything particularly wrong with them. AFAICT, the argument being advanced against Corgi is that insured customers might be doing risky things assuming their insurance will bail them out. This just doesn't ring true to me because I think most startup founders are just willing to accept more risk and accept that sometimes that includes legal risk. When you look at Corgi's marketing, e.g. https://www.corgi.insure/ai what you'll see in the common risk triggers is basically compliance: AI Safety Audits, VC due diligence, EU Regulation. It's basically all about showing other people that you're "doing something", not because you think you need or want insurance. I think the comparison to Delve is actually quite apt: startups generally do not care about SOC 2, they just need the checkbox that their customers are asking for. And startup's customers often themselves don't really care, they are just doing it to satisfy their own SOC 2 requirements, ad infinitum. I think the main people that are being potentially deceived here are not Corgi's customers, those customers' customers, but I don't think they truly care either and are also checking a box. |