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.