We have asked Delve to leave YC.
YC is a community, not just an accelerator. The founders in our community have to trust each other, and we have to trust them. When that trust breaks down, there's really only one thing to do.
We're not going to get into the details publicly. We wish them well.
I have no direct knowledge of the accuracy of any of this. This is not my account.
Kinda like "bless your heart", which means nothing of the sort.
But Delve themselves can’t really do any of that. They’ve screwed up on a fundamental piece of their own business model. Their core offering *is* Compliance as a Service!
How could I trust their word that they’ll ensure my company is compliant? How could I trust their word that a company I’m doing business with is compliant? They can’t even handle their own Apache 2.0 licensed works, and that’s child’s play- relatively speaking. I’m supposed to trust that they can handle PCI and HIPPA and all the rest for other companies?
This is like having a dentist who doesn’t brush and floss their own teeth. Or a building inspector working out of a moldy office suite with exposed rebar. Or an editor with a personal website full of typos and grammatical errors. It’s a dealbreaker to anyone with common sense.
https://www.forbes.com/profile/delve/
30U30 never ceases to amaze.
Holmes, SBF, Shkreli, Charlie Javice, Ishan Wahi...
Hypercompetitive fields will always surface cheaters given enough time. Then regulations pile on to fight the cheating, which makes it harder for honest people to do the good work.
We do not punish cheaters like these as much as we should.
colour me surprised
people still seem to think that forbes scouts the world for the best talents instead of the lists being basically a paid ad
If you can't trust your batch mates for something as crucial as compliance, the model doesn't work.
This has zero bearing on equity, which would be a different conversation. In this case, I think the YC SAFE is likely to remain as-is, unless the founders choose to return the money, or YC chooses to levy a heavier allegation of fraud (which they don't seem to have done here).
Their value prop had to be strong enough to get past YC, past the other founders in the batch, past due diligence. Given that, I'm no longer comfortable casting "fraud" as a clean binary.
To be clear — I do genuinely believe they are a fraudulent company that lied and deserved to be removed. But introspectively, I have to sit with the fact that the space between "working around dumb regulations" and "outright fraud" is murkier than we'd like to admit.
Also, there was no “endgame.” They weren’t trying to change the law; they were exclusively breaking it for profit.
But I agree that Delve is a special case and should naturally be held to a higher standard here because their whole business is around being compliant with the law. When most other startups break the law, they do it to get an advantage over competition. Delve did it in a way that sacrificed their core value towards customers.
This is something Airbnb has facilitated for a very long time, no? And Uber, back when it started.
From a legal perspective I don’t see that it matters whether you’re trying to change the law or not. You’re either following it or breaking it.
In reality, it makes quite a difference if public opinion is on your side or not.
“We decided to commit fraud by providing fake compliance reports” reads very differently from “we let homeowners make money by renting a room”
Huh? In a legal sense I'm pretty sure they're the same thing.
How and why matters, though.
How and why you break a law matters (to a judge / jury). Whether you frame it as "ignoring" vs "breaking" in your legal defense, not so much.
Not illegal here, but I hope you not complain when caught and fined.
> I ignore the law every day when I jaywalk.
Means the exact same thing as “I intentionally break jaywalking laws every day”. They are equivalent sentences.
This is like a line from a Naked Gun movie. The only way that this sentence could be true linguistically is if the party doesn’t break the law that they’re ignoring (e.g. I could ignore the rule against perpetuities while drunk driving through a zoo)
Anderson Consulting er I mean "Accenture": "Hey, that's our job!"
PWC: "Yeah! Fuck off!"
KPMG: "Damn straight!"
Ernst & Young: "What they said."
Deloitte & Touche: "Ditto."
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_scandals#List_of_th... )
Like, it's a company that sells AI-slop powered regulatory compliance. How many laws do you think the "fake it ill you make it and you'll never make it" AI will break? But "regulatory compliance" is laws that startups hate, so breaking them is good.
Copyright and the copyleft licenses built upon it are the laws that support the software industry instead of just making sure innocent people aren't hurt by all this innovating and disrupting.
Notably YC hasn't wished them a farewell.
Why do all start-ups say this? I don't think there are many companies publicly saying "We're going to go 'scorched earth' on everybody."
Saying it in 2026 just makes it sound more insincere than usual.
> One interesting observation I’ve noticed is a lot of top founders did oddly strong at math from a young age.
https://x.com/kocalars/status/2027076198002553159
Nauseating.
->
You mean like OpenAI, Anthropic and all these other 'unicorns'?
I'm happy we're all clear on how bad Delve is but in essence what they were doing is exactly the same as what these AI companies do.
I'd wager there's some prior art...
The only next product launch is an investigation.
But that's just the cherry on top. I don't think they're being thrown out because they violated a license. There are really serious fraud allegations. Allegedly they were rubber-stamping noncompliant customers, leaving them exposed to potential criminal liability under regulations like HIPPA.
https://deepdelver.substack.com/p/delve-fake-compliance-as-a...
I've only skimmed this so I do not endorse these allegations, but I think it's context missing from this discussion.
I’m sure if Delve has only engaged in fraudulent audits or had only resold another YC company’s product, they would have been allowed to stay, the problem is all of that combined pissed off enough other YC companies.
Of course they're responsible for their investments; they're just not liable. YC has a lot to answer for in the damage it's wreaked over the years.
I'm seriously disgusted about this because this was one of the very few auditors that we held in pretty high esteem.
Pay-to-play is all too common, and I think that there is a baked in conflict of interest in the whole model.