| |
| ▲ | walletdrainer a day ago | parent | next [-] | | >The point is that you should absolutely be upset at the bank for arbitrarily banning someone for no reason Why? It’s the regulators who are to blame for that, not the bank. | |
| ▲ | input_sh a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Let me re-iterate this one more time: he invested in Qonto, he invested in Wise. Therefore, whether the actual reason is incompetence or a personal vendetta or both, he deserves some of the blame. He is the one that funded them. He is the reason they exist, as (in)competent as they are. Shifting the blame to "incompetence" does not absolve him of any guilt, he is equally to blame for that as well. | | |
| ▲ | milesskorpen a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's extremely improbable that a random critique of Thiel led to one of the many many many companies he invests in banning this guy. It's not impossible, but - Occam's razor, it's not the simplest assumption. Your initial post suggested that we should assume that there is a link; now you're backing up to "Thiel takes some blame from bad actions by companies he invests in," which is a much weaker but more defensible claim. | | |
| ▲ | input_sh a day ago | parent [-] | | Was I the one to shift the conversation into "incompetence" or did someone else do that thinking it absolves Thiel of any blame? Which I've proven it doesn't and you just agreed with me that it doesn't? We can go back to my original claim if you want to, but my stance would remain the same as it did it in my first comment: if on one side of the argument we have a company directly funded by Thiel and on the other side we have literally anyone else, I personally don't need any strong evidence to believe that other side, as I am well-familiar with Thiel. | | |
| ▲ | gruez a day ago | parent [-] | | >Was I the one to shift the conversation into "incompetence" or did someone else do that thinking it absolves Thiel of any blame? If you're talking about my comment, you must be mistaken because "incompetence" almost by definition is blameworthy. | | |
| ▲ | input_sh a day ago | parent [-] | | Cool, Thiel is still to blame. That is the only business model of neobanks: be more incompetent than traditional banks, skirt the laws as much as you can get away with by being "new", raise prices through the roof once you have enough suckers because you have "better UX", raise the prices even further once traditional banks catch up and convince a certain percentage of your users to switch back, shut down entirely once you've burned through the market and cannot convince anyone new to use you. | | |
| ▲ | gruez a day ago | parent [-] | | >Cool, Thiel is still to blame. Only weakly, and closer to "all boeing shareholders are to blame for the accidents associated with the 737 MAX" than what was originally claimed, which was that he was specifically banned as some sort of retribution for his criticism of Thiel. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | josephcsible a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think it's fair to blame an investor who's not the founder and has no executive/managerial control of a company for what that company does. Do you have a retirement account that invests in the S&P 500? Should you be responsible for the decisions all of the companies in it make? | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
