Discussion
The Thirty Under Thirty Fraud Watch
brcmthrowaway: The Nikola founder, and Anthony Levandowski for that matter (seems to have gone under the radar), have got to be the most egregious case of corruption and pay-for-play. It's so depressing that no one can do anything about it.
NewsaHackO: This seems extremely mean spirited.
Lerc: What is a person who makes a site like this thinking about when they do it?What is their motivation? What are they trying to achieve?
afavour: They’re pointing out fraud. Is that a bad thing now?
seamossfet: Some of these really don't make sense. The implication that Cursor is a fraudulent company is a little weird considering they actually have real users.Like sure, is it a VS code fork with agents stapled to it? Yes. But are they on the same scale as most of the people mentioned? Ehh probably not.It reads more like a hit piece from someone with a grudge against random SF companies than anything else.
andy99: Are they being unfairly singled out or do the meet some common search criteria? If it’s the former I agree it’s not really fair, if it’s the latter it’s interesting.
itsankur: Levandowski is back with TK at Atoms
enoint: What is a “satirical risk analysis” and am I to believe that the bottom section is built from anonymous submissions?
raincole: A tranquil heart gives life to the flesh, but envy makes the bones rot.I feel a little bit sad for the author of the site. May they find tranquility one day.
spencerflem: Why do you think they’re jealous of fraudsters?
paxys: What fraud have any of the companies under "risk index" committed?
jwpapi: Is the formula based on the actual probabilities. I’m pretty sure you could do that, but it’s not clear it it.
TallGuyShort: Some of the comments are unnecessary, but things like this:> wiping $40B and several people's life savingsOkay, you shouldn't dump your life savings into a cryptocurrency that claims to be doing innovative things in the first 2 days. But if that's true that guy ruined multiple people's life's work. That's a bit mean-spirited, wouldn't you say?
NewsaHackO: Did you read the page? The first portion is whatever, but then it lists random founders with no record of doing anything nefarious based on a random ranking list. It's literally bullying.
ForHackernews: Correct. It's abusive to apply probabilistic AI models to real human individuals and penalize them for things they haven't even done yet with no recourse.I hope you will remember this the next time your employer asks you to build an AI moderation, credit evaluation, or anti-fraud system that will harm much larger numbers of innocent people far than one mean website.
dwedge: How old is this site, because most of the reference links are dead links
paxys: Probably ran out of tokens halfway through
throw03172019: They should have left off the last section. No reason to shame founders if no wrong doing
lasky: how is making a website like this legal?
reaperducer: how is making a website like this legal?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...
czhu12: Would say, the 30 under 30 list has like 600 people, not 30. So the fraud rate is quite a bit lower than headlines of seemingly 2 / 30. Its more like 2 / 600, which is maybe the baseline fraud rate?
throwaway85825: Doesn't matter. It's always been based on vibes, now the vibe is fraud.
dancerofaran: the stupidity to this is that it takes a meme and treats it like factsyes, numerous 30u30 have committed frauds, and yes this list is a paid list. but it's also full of other people who have been duped by what this list represents. compounding memes at the expense of truth just creates more problems than it solves
arjun810: it’s not a paid list. Or at least it wasn’t, can’t say with certainty it didn’t change.
oefrha: > Risk Index> Mercor — 3x on 30u30Interesting, I only know this company because they’re the leading spammer hitting my inbox in the AI job board category.
reaperducer: No reason to shame founders if no wrong doingIf there's no wrong-doing, then there's nothing of which to be ashamed.
rogerkirkness: I've met several of the people on the first few pages on the watch list, and they are among the sketchiest Silicon Valley people I've met. The criteria are plausible.
spencerflem: Why do you think they’re jealous of future fraudsters?But like genuinely, this sort of take confuses me so much. It’s like, if someone made fun of Putin and the consensus was that they’re just jealous they don’t have a country of their own to run.
afavour: I don’t know, it reads more like a “told you so” than envy to me. I don’t get the impression the author wants to be these people.“Told you so” can be quite a tranquil feeling.
paxys: Forbes "30 under 30" actually has like 600 people a year in 20 categories, and that's just in the USA. Add in international lists and the number rises to well over 1000. Since 2011 there have probably been, what, 10-15 thousand total "honorees"? ~12 instances of fraud in total is probably significantly below the corporate average.And the "risk index" is idiotic. Basically just companies the creator doesn't like, or is jealous of.
enoint: There was a running total of $18.5 B in fraud from inductees. That’s about half of the size of card fraud. Maybe 2% of worldwide fraud.
beejiu: The First Amendment does not protect libel.
CobrastanJorji: Seems like there should be an incarcerated stamp for people who were in jail for fraud but later got out, like Shkreli.
AIorNot: We're Missing the biggest frauds of all time: https://www.whitehouse.gov/When your president is a complete fraud and con man, the whole country is tarnished - its too late for America to bounce back, we are in end stage capitalism now that Trump and his cronies are siphoning money out of the boundaries his administration establish -no different than Putin and his oligrachs except that America still has some protections in place..
buckle8017: Some people on the list likely paid to be on it. They likely didn't pay Forbes the company though and maybe the payment was just invites to parties.
AIorNot: well why was Cursor included amongst known fraudsters.. that just seems mean and warrentless
afavour: In the section that says:100% SATIRICAL — SCORES ARE FICTIONAL AND DO NOT REFLECT REAL-WORLD FRAUD RISK?Personally I think it’s not a bad thing to be a little skeptical about brand new companies with billion dollar valuations. If they’re legit they can more than withstand a little satirical dig.
busymom0: I think the site likely started off as a meme. However it also seems to have a bit of a "hit piece" vibe to it.
AIorNot: I'm all for the big names and ones that have proven issues and companies like Delve to be shamedBut Cursor? Why they are operating in a risky space on tech that is all new what ethical things did they do to warrent inclusion in this shame board?Lets not tarnish folks either -cancel culture is worrisome there
nutjob2: Which bit of "risk index" are you not getting?Alternatively: how are you in a position to claim they're 100% not frauds?
YossarianFrPrez: Reactions to this are a bit curious. It's a satirical comment on how (presumably) initially well-intentioned younger founder-types get swept up in / by perverse incentives. The implication is that younger people who are still figuring out who they are and coming into their own may be more susceptible to these kinds of incentive traps.The first section that showcases the fraud that has been committed is something I have no problem with, just as I have no issue with web3isgoinggreat.com. The "at risk" section is based on a mathematical/algorithmic joke. This is explained by the "methodology" section below it, which makes it clear that the equation used to calculate "risk" here is not entirely unlike the Drake equation for the probability of extra-terrestrial life.[1][1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
throwaway85825: How about a fraud prison tat? Murderers have teardrops.
tyre: To be specific, not all teardrops indicate that the person is a murderer. The teardrop is specifically in remembrance of someone else who was killed.An empty teardrop indicates the death hasn’t been avenged; a half-filled one that someone else killed the killer; and only a full teardrop means that person killed the killer.
worik: Tattooed on their forehead?
refulgentis: I think it’s because it’s slightly obvious it was vibe(coded && written).Starts looking like low effort libel, punching down, more than some clever joke x a statistics exercisePut another way: the Drake equation, this ain’t.
afavour: Punching down? To companies worth twenties of billions of dollars?The impulse to label everything a “startup” and thus a smolbean little guy is fascinating.
Blackthorn: Punching down??? These people are silicon valley founders.
afavour: > The implication that Cursor is a fraudulent company is a little weirdTo my reading the premise of the site is pretty straightforward: 30 Under 30 is a warning sign, not a positive signal. Therefore, as a company with 4 founders who were in 30 Under 30, Cursor is a risk.It’s a silly little satire site, there’s a danger of reading into it too deeply.
sixtyj: Nice work.In section The 30u30 Risk Index there is some css bug, text is in long lines outside of boxes.
yreg: I know several 30u30 people in my country's list and I highly doubt they paid for anything.
iddan: The regular ones are okay. The watchlist is diabolical. Unvoted as soon as I saw the watchlist.
kelnos: The "watchlist" made me a bit uncomfortable. I get that it's satire, but putting real people's names in a list of people you're (even jokingly) watching for fraud, and assigning a "risk factor" to them (even/especially if they acknowledge it's made up) borders on defamation in my book.
jedberg: This is funny, because I know a bunch of 30 under 30s, and I've invested in a few. There is a strong overlap between 30 under 30 and YC founders.I consider myself a good judge of character, because not one of the one's I've invested in has committed fraud!
asdev: half the watchlist is literally vaporware
tolerance: Whatever period we're supposed to call the entropic stage where postmodernism and "today's modernism" intertwine, this is THAT.
RagnarD: Including "Dropout" as some significant metric is truly idiotic. Meekly going through a university degree isn't indicative of being a paragon of virtue or success, and it's a safe bet that most higher end convicted fraudsters had a degree, probably an advanced one (i.e. the large majority of politicians in that group.)
tdb7893: Maybe it was added after your comment but that section has a warning box calling the score a "deliberately absurd formula" and saying "this is comedy" in literal bold letters at the top. No one thinks it's serious and it's even clearly labeled as a joke just in case.
jacquesm: Stopped clocks...
estearum: Eh, I think selection effects are more prevalent than an earnest good faith actor who got swept up into perverse incentives.Forbes 30u30 is a clarion call for the most ambitiously Machiavellian among us.They’re not subject to any different incentives than the rest of us. But they’d certainly have a higher rate of sociopaths and more garden variety Machiavellis than genpop.
jacquesm: That + AH or SB. Those are the kiss of death, especially when combined for the 30u30.
asdev: If you didn't know, 30 under 30 doesn't have a selection process and you can literally apply and game your way into being mentioned. I honestly love the site and the UI. Great job! Would be nice to have some kind of thing for YC founders as well
sillysaurusx: I was curious to pin down the definition of Machiavellian:> Manipulation & Deceit: Using charm, lies, and calculated moves to influence others.> Lack of Empathy: A cold, detached, and unemotional demeanor that disregards the feelings of others.> Strategic Long-Term Planning: Unlike impulsive psychopaths, high-Machs are patient, planning, and can delay gratification to ensure success.> Cynical Worldview: Believing that people are inherently weak, untrustworthy, and that "the ends justify the means".> Low Affect: Possessing limited emotional experience, often leading to a detached, "puppet-master" role rather than seeking the spotlight.The only traits that seem bad are the lying and lack of empathy. The rest seem neutral (low emotional experience is something we hackers tend to identify with), sensible (random people tend to be untrustworthy), or admirable (delayed gratification).Using charm and calculated moves to influence others isn’t a bad thing. It’s the basis of flattery.I wish there was a positive version of Machiavellian which cut the lies and lack of empathy. Those are genuinely bad.
ed_balls: avoid people that need narcissistic supply at all cost.
BenFranklin100: I’ve been in the startup and scientific community for 25 years now and during that that time I’ve run across about two dozen 30 under 30s. Every single one with exception of two were douchebags.I think a reason it so over represented by douchebags is because the awardees — unlike McArthur winners — are very involved in the nomination process and work to game the system.https://thegenzeoclub.substack.com/p/forbes-30-under-30-nomi...
storus: 30u30 are an artifact of networking not directly Machiavellianism/sociopathy; pals promote them (often as children of their pals) to the list.
refulgentis: Maybe you missed the bottom section? There's plenty of comments taking umbrage at it.Alternatively, you think it's okay to make up stuff about young people because they got a seed round. That's stock-human behavior but it's not rational.
bloodyplonker22: Yeah, and the reason 30 under 30 is a warning sign is because the founders that apply to and agree to do Forbes to do "30 under 30" are much more concerned with marketing than actually building a legitimate product. Legitimate under 30 founders are spending their time actually building instead.
