No. He should not name and shame, he should go talk to a laywer.
Whats with the trend lately to constantly trying to solve injustice with more injustice? That's just making more problems instead of less.
Whats with the trend lately to constantly trying to solve injustice with more injustice? That's just making more problems instead of less.
As a successful startup, there will be future rounds of funding. Any follow-on investor will eventually find out about problems on a cap table. They will probably fight to reverse it before an investment, or worse - it will sink the deal and the company. If OP's VC is a novice, maybe they don't know about liquidation preference. If they are not new, then perhaps the community should know about such divergent investment terms.
I agree about talking to a lawyer. But, in my experience, lawyers can find a way to make things work - and they won't stop a deal because of non-standard round terms. The non-standard terms hurt the company as they try to bring on additional investors. Any experienced founder or investor can provide guidance about how trying to "reinvent the wheel" for fundraising will cause problems down the line.
To OP, I suggest reading section 3 in this article by Roy Bahat: https://also.roybahat.com/dear-first-time-angel-investor-c6a...
Why is this a generational thing?
Public shaming as an immediate reaction is fairly recent in the short history of the internet. The technology supported it easily in the 90s (or even late 80s using newsgroups), but it didn't become a common practice right away. Retweeting and hashtags seem to have turbocharged public shaming.
The social norms of my generation (49 yo, in California) required that one try to settle business disputes directly between the parties before resorting to public shaming. I still abide by that norm, even though I recognize that many people think differently. Which way is ultimately better for society isn't clear yet.