> How much due digilence was done on SBF / FTX by The New-York Times and by the VCs who poured hundreds of millions into a pure fraud?

NYT isn't an investor, so that's a total non sequitur.

VCs on the other hand...VCs dont do much diligence. And who really cares really? They lost their money, not yours.

No, they lost limited partners money, which is to a large degree pension money.

Not sure how much VCs coinvest in their own funds but I'm willing to bet most of their retirement funds are not in VC investments.

> which is to a large degree pension money.

Then take this up with your local government then. There is a quantitative risk versus reward they take, and you should be glad that they take this bet. FYI - their portfolio mix for VC assets is usually like less than 5~10%. If a GP makes one bad bet, they hardly feel this.

> Not sure how much VCs coinvest in their own funds but I'm willing to bet most of their retirement funds are not in VC investments.

(1) most co-invest (2) no one in their right mind would put all of their assets in one VC fund. (3) if you're a partner a firm like Sequioa, you likely have a family office setup, which would follow a similar model to that of a pension fund.

When VCs skip diligence and invest in a bunch of frauds like Wirecard, Greensill, FTX, etc., it creates an externality we all have to deal with - we're basically subsidizing their credulousness by getting defrauded.

Since huge frauds propped up by VCs seem to collapse several times a year, it doesn't seem like losing their money is incentive not to invest in frauds. It seems like they've just priced it in.

Granted, this might be yesterday's war, money might be tight in the next few years and that might better align incentives.

> it creates an externality we all have to deal with - we're basically subsidizing their credulousness by getting defrauded.

No one made you buy crypto on FTX. You have to do your own diligence.

> It seems like they've just priced it in

Ding. Ding.

My mistake, I thought you were interested in a discussion about interesting topics, I see you're more interested in being patronizing on the internet. That's not really what I'm here for, so take care.

You made a bold and unfounded statement:

> it creates an externality we all have to deal with - we're basically subsidizing their credulousness by getting defrauded.

and I commented on why I thought it was wrong (e.g. "you don't have to deal with these externalities unless YOU choose to"). How is that not a discussion?

> That's not really what I'm here for, so take care.

Yet, you still responded...hence, discussion.

Sheesh, tough crowd.

VCs, yes, they should have done more due diligence. But putting the NYTimes on the same playing field, as if they can be expected to have the same access to business records as investors, is dumb.

At least FTX actually had users and customers...