news.volyx.in

Delve – Fake Compliance as a Service (deepdelver.substack.com)

836 points by freddykruger · 119 days ago · 296 comments on HN

Article summary

The article discusses Delve, a company that allegedly provides fake compliance as a service, allowing companies to claim they have certain security policies in place when they do not. The company's actions have been described as fraudulent and have raised concerns about the lack of diligence in the startup funding process. The article's content is not directly available, but the comments suggest that Delve's practices have been widely criticized. The company's ability to obtain funding and support despite its allegedly fraudulent activities has also been questioned.

Main themes

  • Fake compliance
  • Startup funding
  • Lack of diligence
  • Fraud in tech
  • Voting ring detection
  • YC-backed companies

What commenters say

  • The lack of diligence in the startup funding process allows companies like Delve to engage in fraudulent activities and still receive funding.
  • Delve's actions are a prime example of the 'fake it till you make it' mentality that can be prevalent in the tech industry.
  • The fact that Delve was able to obtain funding and support despite its allegedly fraudulent activities is a major crisis for investors and the tech industry as a whole.
  • The voting ring detection system may be flawed, as it can be triggered by multiple people trying to submit the same article and upvoting an existing post.
  • Some people believe that the '30 under 30' list has a pipeline to fraud, with some individuals using their status to engage in fraudulent activities.
  • Others argue that the '30 under 30' list is not inherently problematic, and that the instances of fraud are relatively rare.
  • The comments suggest that there may be a cultural problem in the tech industry, where dishonesty and fraud are sometimes seen as acceptable or even admirable.
  • The moderation of the discussion thread was questioned, with some people accusing the moderators of suppressing the story, while others defended the moderators' actions.