Totally agree with the sentiment. I believe that companies have DNA, and that most companies do not change over time, they just get better at hiding the bad stuff. I would probably trust a company that starts off of the right foot (e.g. Google) even when it becomes larger, than trust one that's built off – what I consider to be – shady growth strategies.

Path seems to be taking especially egregious steps. All the UI polish in the world can't hide shady business practices.

We'd see a lot less abusive behavior from startups if investors went to zero when it happened.

As it stands, $800k is a line item equal to only 2% of the money Path has raised. As such, I doubt that anybody who invested in it cares or views this as anything other than a triviality that a few nerds will care about.