Haha, am I still supposed to believe VC’s are competent, intelligent people who deserve their stature when they fall for scams that should be more obvious than a Nigerian prince scam.
> But yes, you’d expect more due diligence from investors, but a lot of times it’s just about how likeable you are and who you know.
I think both of these can be true simultaneously. The limits of due diligence and the practical ability to evaluate an investment opportunity (quickly and at low cost) mean you sometimes do make mistakes, even “stupid” ones. But also, access and networks and old boys clubs are rampant in the VC ecosystem.
There absolutely is a promise. Even if you manage to legally find a way to not get sued, taking advantage of the fact that everyone who gave you money believed it was a promise is still scamming them.
* Promised an alarm clock that would do a bunch of things
* Took $2.5M in funding from Kickstarter
* Took another $50M in funding from elsewhere
* Delivered a piece of hardware that did essentially none of what was promised.
It's all detailed in OP and the linked Verge article. That's a scam and I'm not interested in your legalese arguing whether they can be sued or not.
What... You know, it doesn't matter. Thanks for the summary anyways!
It’s as fair as characterizing an athlete saying he’s competing to win.
A common logical/semantic mistake is that claims about future facts are lies. They can be exaggerations, and we do see this often and I’m personally annoyed when I see it. These claims can be genuine or not. I often think it’s easier for a founder to be naive (or crazy) than not, because they can believe (sometimes strongly) the things they say.
But neither are lies. A lie is when you misrepresent a fact, something that already happened. That’s a big causal difference.
The large gray area is when someone misrepresents intent (as with most cases for cons). This, I suspect, is the main questions you should be asking, but I suspect it falls into the ethics rather than legal debates.