Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by michaelochurch 4495 days ago
No. They are the same crime. You are wrong, both morally and factually. As a founder you have the right to represent investor interest however you see fit. It is up to them to judge you independently and, if they cannot do that, then any gain you make in dealing with them is rightfully yours.
1 comments
Robin_Message 4495 days ago
Michael, I respect and like a lot of what you write, but you've lost me here. An investor fact-checking a statement like "VC A said they would send us a term sheet" is morally wrong and should/is illegal?

And a founder saying "VC B has given us a term sheet", when no such term sheet exists and in fact they said "Normally we don't say no, but for you, we're going to make an exception. Don't call us again!" is okay and the right of the founder.

Could you explain why those two (separate) things should be like that? As a practical first thought, it seemed to me if investors couldn't fact check, and founders could lie freely, gathering social proof would be harder, not easier, which might make it harder to get investment.

link
michaelochurch 4495 days ago
In general, I believe in being as honest as one can, but some people can't be trusted with the truth. That's just a fact. It may be unfortunate, but we're not going to change it just by talking about it. There are many people who are better off not knowing all of the world's state variables (i.e. the truth) because they aren't equipped to handle the complexity and context.

Investors who rely on social proof, if you don't have it yet, fall into that "can't be trusted with the truth" category and it's OK to apply reality tweaks that are ultimately in their interests (giving them the courage to do the right thing) as much as yours.

I don't advocate fraud (lying to people in a way that acts against their interests) but some people don't have the courage to do the right thing unless you pull out some reality tweaks and make them comfortable. That's just life.

Investors who scheme against people who are trying to do that are acting in bad faith, because the ultimate goal of this activity on their part is to bring the devolution of our society into a feudal state. They don't care, at this point, about building or investing in great businesses. They just want to keep others-- people who weren't born into their parasitic social network-- out. I can't respect that in the least and I have no issue with those who choose to mislead them. If the club's purpose is vapid and its selection criteria both meaningless and unfair, then is it wrong to fake membership if it is convenient? Absolutely not.

link