Working around arguably dumb regulations and making your customers happy in the process is not the same as defrauding your customers.

▲

arionhardison 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

While I agree with you, I also find myself wondering who draws the line. Given the current political atmosphere and its increasingly fluid relationship with "truth," I have to consider that the line for others may not be where it is for me — especially given the nuance buried in the details of many B2B deals.

Their value prop had to be strong enough to get past YC, past the other founders in the batch, past due diligence. Given that, I'm no longer comfortable casting "fraud" as a clean binary.

To be clear — I do genuinely believe they are a fraudulent company that lied and deserved to be removed. But introspectively, I have to sit with the fact that the space between "working around dumb regulations" and "outright fraud" is murkier than we'd like to admit.

	▲	pm90 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The vast majority of crimes are still being prosecuted as such. You have to reach a certain size/notoriety and money to buy a POTUS pardon; I doubt that matters for a relatively unknown outfit like Delve.

▲

worik 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Working around arguably dumb regulations...

...is breaking the law

	▲	kaashif an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, but there is a difference between: 1. Customers want to do something, you help them do it, but it's illegal. 2. Customers want to do something, you tell them you did it, but you were lying and defrauding them.