I would rather live in a world where the powerful can be baselessly attacked compared to a world where the weak are unable to fairly attack them - if we need to err on one side or the other I prefer to put up with trolls and scammers.
Even without outing the investors, many founders are currently doing the necessary research to identify the investor and will blacklist him.
I think we should keep in mind that:
1) The accusations are currently unsubstantiated
2) The reputational damage to the investor is already significant and largely irreversable
3) Outing the investor here will significantly increase the reputational damage to the investor
Given the above, I really don't see how it's fair to out the investor before substantiating the accusations or giving the investor time to respond.
EDIT: left out the keyword NOT in the 1:1 comparison
I'm saying that we should keep the identifying info private until the accusations are substantiated.
The internet mob is merciless, and will very likely ruin this guy's reputation once he's outed.
By outing the guy, you are presuming him guilty and inflicting steep punishment when he could be innocent.
How do you substantiate an accusation like "you insisted on talking to me at 3AM local time after I just stepped off a plane after a 18 hour flight" (or whatever the deets are)?
In general, yes, but in this case the most convincing candidate is a billionaire. He'll be fine.
I agree this is the downside of my proposed approach. But, the alternative is a world where someone's reputation can be irreparably damaged by unsubstantiated claims made by one person.
Do you want to live in a world where someone's reputation and livelihood can be destroyed by unsubstantiated claims? You may think I'm overstating the potential damage, but I think people generally underestimate the damage the internet mob can inflict on a person.