No, it would have the sideeffect of investors doing better due dilligence, which would bode well for companies with actual revenue.

While you where downvoted that’s likely somewhat true. VC’s have strong incentives to invest all their money even if it means the fund only breaks even vs turns a small profit.

In turn that drives up many costs like salaries and rent for the startup ecosystem. So, less money likely results in fewer but stronger startups.

The issue is the best returns are for more risky bets that may not be funded in such an environment.

So in the name of higher valuations we should accept criminal money? Interesting thought.

Nobody said that.

Oddly enough, it is immoral but not illegal/criminal money.

>criminal money

First of all, it's Silicon Valley. Check your ethics at the door.

Secondly, it's not illegal if it's not against the laws of a country (and in this case, if the crown prince of a monarchy orders something, that's as close to legal as it gets). You could say that it's immoral, but that's a different statement, and you shouldn't conflate "illegal" with "immoral".

>First of all, it's Silicon Valley. Check your ethics at the door.

Flip or not, this is gross.

Calling a murder not a crime because a king decreed it is mind boggling. You shouldnt conflate "illegal" with "criminal".

If a king decrees it inside an absolute monarchy, it's not a crime. That's literally how absolute monarchies work--the monarch has absolute and unaccountable power.

Edit: if you disagree, please tell me why.

I disagree because positivism is not the smartest legal theory in my view. We all know Godwin's law, but nazi crimes is probably the best example of how something done by people with absolute power was considered and persecuted as a crime.

>First of all, it's Silicon Valley. Check your ethics at the door.

No thank you. Maybe you're OK with this worldview, but I am not.

> First of all, it's Silicon Valley. Check your ethics at the door.

Why would we do that?