Hacker News Reader

Suing a company you funded is extreme enough that doing it even once attracts a reputation. Would future founders considering potential investors assume that Kalanick was so far out of line that there's no way anything similar could happen to them? Or would they think that there's probably blame on both sides, and there are better investors around?

View on HN

Why does funding a company have to mean that you are forever beholden to the CEO's bad decisions? Extreme this is not, and founders should take this as a signal that Benchmark will bring reason to the board.

>Why does funding a company have to mean that you are forever beholden to the CEO's bad decisions?

Huh? It doesn't?

Exactly.

Remember CEO=founder in this case. It's not "Benchmark will keep your board in line", it's "Benchmark might sue you".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com