Some of these really don't make sense. The implication that Cursor is a fraudulent company is a little weird considering they actually have real users.
Like sure, is it a VS code fork with agents stapled to it? Yes. But are they on the same scale as most of the people mentioned? Ehh probably not.
It reads more like a hit piece from someone with a grudge against random SF companies than anything else.
> The implication that Cursor is a fraudulent company is a little weird
To my reading the premise of the site is pretty straightforward: 30 Under 30 is a warning sign, not a positive signal. Therefore, as a company with 4 founders who were in 30 Under 30, Cursor is a risk.
It’s a silly little satire site, there’s a danger of reading into it too deeply.
Yeah, and the reason 30 under 30 is a warning sign is because the founders that apply to and agree to do Forbes to do "30 under 30" are much more concerned with marketing than actually building a legitimate product. Legitimate under 30 founders are spending their time actually building instead.
Maybe it was added after your comment but that section has a warning box calling the score a "deliberately absurd formula" and saying "this is comedy" in literal bold letters at the top. No one thinks it's serious and it's even clearly labeled as a joke just in case.
Reactions to this are a bit curious. It's a satirical comment on how (presumably) initially well-intentioned younger founder-types get swept up in / by perverse incentives. The implication is that younger people who are still figuring out who they are and coming into their own may be more susceptible to these kinds of incentive traps.
The first section that showcases the fraud that has been committed is something I have no problem with, just as I have no issue with web3isgoinggreat.com. The "at risk" section is based on a mathematical/algorithmic joke. This is explained by the "methodology" section below it, which makes it clear that the equation used to calculate "risk" here is not entirely unlike the Drake equation for the probability of extra-terrestrial life.[1]
Eh, I think selection effects are more prevalent than an earnest good faith actor who got swept up into perverse incentives.
Forbes 30u30 is a clarion call for the most ambitiously Machiavellian among us.
They’re not subject to any different incentives than the rest of us. But they’d certainly have a higher rate of sociopaths and more garden variety Machiavellis than genpop.
I was curious to pin down the definition of Machiavellian:
> Manipulation & Deceit: Using charm, lies, and calculated moves to influence others.
> Lack of Empathy: A cold, detached, and unemotional demeanor that disregards the feelings of others.
> Strategic Long-Term Planning: Unlike impulsive psychopaths, high-Machs are patient, planning, and can delay gratification to ensure success.
> Cynical Worldview: Believing that people are inherently weak, untrustworthy, and that "the ends justify the means".
> Low Affect: Possessing limited emotional experience, often leading to a detached, "puppet-master" role rather than seeking the spotlight.
The only traits that seem bad are the lying and lack of empathy. The rest seem neutral (low emotional experience is something we hackers tend to identify with), sensible (random people tend to be untrustworthy), or admirable (delayed gratification).
Using charm and calculated moves to influence others isn’t a bad thing. It’s the basis of flattery.
I wish there was a positive version of Machiavellian which cut the lies and lack of empathy. Those are genuinely bad.
No, because smart people realize they are playing an iterated game and that behaving in a way that people identify as Machiavellian is actually suboptimal in the long run.
So they're smart enough to be calculated and stupid enough not to be so calculated that they look untrustworthy.
Maybe you missed the bottom section? There's plenty of comments taking umbrage at it.
Alternatively, you think it's okay to make up stuff about young people because they got a seed round. That's stock-human behavior but it's not rational or kind.
I was specifically thinking of Cursor when I said “companies with twenty billion dollar valuations”.
My point, as I think was clear, was that criticising the founders of billion dollar companies via satire is not “punching down” by any means. Nor is it libel. You are throwing words around without meaning.
(and “young people”, there we go with the smolbean stuff again. If they’re too young to face criticism then they’re too young to be CEOs of billion dollar companies. You can’t have it both ways)
"Punching down" was about the watchlist section, not Cursor. You brought up Cursor, I didn't, and only after the fact.
"There we go with the smolbean stuff again": I never said that or anything like it. You're putting an argument in my mouth and then swatting it down. Twice now.
"If they're too young for criticism they're too young to be CEOs of billion dollar companies. You can't have it both ways." Scroll the watchlist. Most of those people aren't running billion dollar companies. That's the whole point. I definitely agree not all CEOs are good people and I generally agree the irrational argument all CEOs no matter of age are more likely to be net-destructive to society. That's the most extreme version of what you're saying, and we likely agree on it.
So we agree the conduct towards Cursor, and whatever other companies you want to name, is fair game. The only question is whether that extends to literally everyone on the list. I don't think it does. That's it.
The "watchlist" made me a bit uncomfortable. I get that it's satire, but putting real people's names in a list of people you're (even jokingly) watching for fraud, and assigning a "risk factor" to them (even/especially if they acknowledge it's made up) borders on defamation in my book.
If you didn't know, 30 under 30 doesn't have a selection process and you can literally apply and game your way into being mentioned. I honestly love the site and the UI. Great job! Would be nice to have some kind of thing for YC founders as well
I somewhat expect that if Forbes is tracking people working on some of the trendiest / most exciting stuff and also trends attract frauds then this is sort of inevitable
I don't have strong feelings about the watch list (use and like several of the products on there so not that worried about them all being frauds), and I think the concept is kind of humorous
Would say, the 30 under 30 list has like 600 people, not 30. So the fraud rate is quite a bit lower than headlines of seemingly 2 / 30. Its more like 2 / 600, which is maybe the baseline fraud rate?
The AI agent paradigm is promising but current implementations are fragile. The failure modes compound — each step in a chain has some probability of error, and multi-step chains amplify this exponentially.
The Nikola founder, and Anthony Levandowski for that matter (seems to have gone under the radar), have got to be the most egregious case of corruption and pay-for-play. It's so depressing that no one can do anything about it.
I've met several of the people on the first few pages on the watch list, and they are among the sketchiest Silicon Valley people I've met. The criteria are plausible.
the stupidity to this is that it takes a meme and treats it like facts
yes, numerous 30u30 have committed frauds, and yes this list is a paid list. but it's also full of other people who have been duped by what this list represents. compounding memes at the expense of truth just creates more problems than it solves
Some of the comments are unnecessary, but things like this:
> wiping $40B and several people's life savings
Okay, you shouldn't dump your life savings into a cryptocurrency that claims to be doing innovative things in the first 2 days. But if that's true that guy ruined multiple people's life's work. That's a bit mean-spirited, wouldn't you say?
Did you read the page? The first portion is whatever, but then it lists random founders with no record of doing anything nefarious based on a random ranking list. It's literally bullying.
Correct. It's abusive to apply probabilistic AI models to real human individuals and penalize them for things they haven't even done yet with no recourse.
I hope you will remember this the next time your employer asks you to build an AI moderation, credit evaluation, or anti-fraud system that will harm much larger numbers of innocent people far than one mean website.
Yes, but so? It provides a modicum of balance versus relentless hype by founders and the doting media. Even if not true it might remind people to have some healthy skepticism. The fact that your reflex is to find it "extremely mean spirited" speaks volumes. Everyone else in life gets shat apron because of other people's unscrupulous behavior, why are these people special? People should assume that there is a good chance any business venture is a fraud.
Ultimately it's one guy's opinion. It's not like he's going to ruin these people's lives or businesses.
Including "Dropout" as some significant metric is truly idiotic. Meekly going through a university degree isn't indicative of being a paragon of virtue or success, and it's a safe bet that most higher end convicted fraudsters had a degree, probably an advanced one (i.e. the large majority of politicians in that group.)
I’ve been in the startup and scientific community for 25 years now and during that that time I’ve run across about two dozen 30 under 30s. Every single one with exception of two were douchebags.
I think a reason it so over represented by douchebags is because the awardees — unlike McArthur winners — are very involved in the nomination process and work to game the system.
When your president is a complete fraud and con man, the whole country is tarnished - its too late for America to bounce back, we are in end stage capitalism now that Trump and his cronies are siphoning money out of the boundaries his administration establish -no different than Putin and his oligrachs except that America still has some protections in place..
Forbes "30 under 30" actually has like 600 people a year in 20 categories, and that's just in the USA. Add in international lists and the number rises to well over 1000. Since 2011 there have probably been, what, 10-15 thousand total "honorees"? ~12 instances of fraud in total is probably significantly below the corporate average.
And the "risk index" is idiotic. Basically just companies the creator doesn't like, or is jealous of.
Is "30 under 30" one of those schemes that require people to put themselves forward and maybe pay a fee? I've seen a bunch of "awards" (particularly for companies) that follow the same model.
To be specific, not all teardrops indicate that the person is a murderer. The teardrop is specifically in remembrance of someone else who was killed.
An empty teardrop indicates the death hasn’t been avenged; a half-filled one that someone else killed the killer; and only a full teardrop means that person killed the killer.
I'm not saying they need to remain social pariahs. I'm saying that if you set out to collect a list of people who have doing shady things, and you are explicitly creating a category of those people who have been convicted of crimes and sent to jail, it makes little sense to break that down into "currently in jail" and "done being in jail." They are equally 30 under 30 people who were later convicted of crimes and sent to jail.
They’re pointing out fraud. Is that a bad thing now?
I think it’s fair game to point out that the the 30 under 30 hype list is just that: hype. And there’s often very little substance underneath hype. And sometimes there’s outright deceit under it.
I asked for an insight into their thought process and goals. The assumption that this was something bad did not come from my words but the nature of the page itself.
I have encountered many instances of fraud being highlighted. Generally it is a valuable journalistic service that I have no problem with. Most don't send the message that they have a vindictive axe to grind like this one does.
100% SATIRICAL — SCORES ARE FICTIONAL AND DO NOT REFLECT REAL-WORLD FRAUD RISK
?
Personally I think it’s not a bad thing to be a little skeptical about brand new companies with double digit billion dollar valuations. If they’re legit they can more than withstand a little satirical dig.
Some of these really don't make sense. The implication that Cursor is a fraudulent company is a little weird considering they actually have real users.
Like sure, is it a VS code fork with agents stapled to it? Yes. But are they on the same scale as most of the people mentioned? Ehh probably not.
It reads more like a hit piece from someone with a grudge against random SF companies than anything else.
> The implication that Cursor is a fraudulent company is a little weird
To my reading the premise of the site is pretty straightforward: 30 Under 30 is a warning sign, not a positive signal. Therefore, as a company with 4 founders who were in 30 Under 30, Cursor is a risk.
It’s a silly little satire site, there’s a danger of reading into it too deeply.
Yeah, and the reason 30 under 30 is a warning sign is because the founders that apply to and agree to do Forbes to do "30 under 30" are much more concerned with marketing than actually building a legitimate product. Legitimate under 30 founders are spending their time actually building instead.
It looks like the score number is just the number of times featured multiplied by a constant.
Maybe it was added after your comment but that section has a warning box calling the score a "deliberately absurd formula" and saying "this is comedy" in literal bold letters at the top. No one thinks it's serious and it's even clearly labeled as a joke just in case.
Stopped clocks...
What is a “satirical risk analysis” and am I to believe that the bottom section is built from anonymous submissions?
They should have left off the last section. No reason to shame founders if no wrong doing
No reason to shame founders if no wrong doing
If there's no wrong-doing, then there's nothing of which to be ashamed.
Missing /s at the end my dude.
Reactions to this are a bit curious. It's a satirical comment on how (presumably) initially well-intentioned younger founder-types get swept up in / by perverse incentives. The implication is that younger people who are still figuring out who they are and coming into their own may be more susceptible to these kinds of incentive traps.
The first section that showcases the fraud that has been committed is something I have no problem with, just as I have no issue with web3isgoinggreat.com. The "at risk" section is based on a mathematical/algorithmic joke. This is explained by the "methodology" section below it, which makes it clear that the equation used to calculate "risk" here is not entirely unlike the Drake equation for the probability of extra-terrestrial life.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
Eh, I think selection effects are more prevalent than an earnest good faith actor who got swept up into perverse incentives.
Forbes 30u30 is a clarion call for the most ambitiously Machiavellian among us.
They’re not subject to any different incentives than the rest of us. But they’d certainly have a higher rate of sociopaths and more garden variety Machiavellis than genpop.
That + AH or SB. Those are the kiss of death, especially when combined for the 30u30.
I was curious to pin down the definition of Machiavellian:
> Manipulation & Deceit: Using charm, lies, and calculated moves to influence others.
> Lack of Empathy: A cold, detached, and unemotional demeanor that disregards the feelings of others.
> Strategic Long-Term Planning: Unlike impulsive psychopaths, high-Machs are patient, planning, and can delay gratification to ensure success.
> Cynical Worldview: Believing that people are inherently weak, untrustworthy, and that "the ends justify the means".
> Low Affect: Possessing limited emotional experience, often leading to a detached, "puppet-master" role rather than seeking the spotlight.
The only traits that seem bad are the lying and lack of empathy. The rest seem neutral (low emotional experience is something we hackers tend to identify with), sensible (random people tend to be untrustworthy), or admirable (delayed gratification).
Using charm and calculated moves to influence others isn’t a bad thing. It’s the basis of flattery.
I wish there was a positive version of Machiavellian which cut the lies and lack of empathy. Those are genuinely bad.
> Using charm and calculated moves to influence others isn’t a bad thing. It’s the basis of flattery.
Flattery doesn't have to be calculated.
As to calculated moves, distinct things can fit the same labels. Intent, context, and execution are all important.
I would argue that flattery without calculation is just poorly calculated flattery.
Same applies to many other traits in the list. Low achievements people lie right and left just as well. Are cynical when convenient, yada yada.
Basically, the list says that these 30s are just like an average Joe, but smart. Which should be a surprise to no one.
No, because smart people realize they are playing an iterated game and that behaving in a way that people identify as Machiavellian is actually suboptimal in the long run.
So they're smart enough to be calculated and stupid enough not to be so calculated that they look untrustworthy.
They're only the same thing if you ignore intent.
Not everyone lies or is cynical when convenient. Skill, rate of success, and personal ethics are all orthogonal concepts.
Above all, intent matters. I do not treat someone who I perceive to be manipulative the same as I would other people.
30u30 are an artifact of networking not directly Machiavellianism/sociopathy; pals promote them (often as children of their pals) to the list.
You don't think Machiavellianism would be overrepresented in a group selected in this way?
Indirectly; U30 are typically propelled by their parents who might be well-connected Machiavellian or sociopathic.
So in other words you'd expect Machiavellianism and sociopathy to be overrepresented in 30u30
I think it’s because it’s slightly obvious it was vibe(coded && written).
Starts looking like low effort libel, punching down, more than some clever joke x a statistics exercise
Put another way: the Drake equation, this ain’t.
Punching down? To companies worth twenties of billions of dollars?
The impulse to label everything a “startup” and thus a smolbean little guy is fascinating.
Maybe you missed the bottom section? There's plenty of comments taking umbrage at it.
Alternatively, you think it's okay to make up stuff about young people because they got a seed round. That's stock-human behavior but it's not rational or kind.
I was specifically thinking of Cursor when I said “companies with twenty billion dollar valuations”.
My point, as I think was clear, was that criticising the founders of billion dollar companies via satire is not “punching down” by any means. Nor is it libel. You are throwing words around without meaning.
(and “young people”, there we go with the smolbean stuff again. If they’re too young to face criticism then they’re too young to be CEOs of billion dollar companies. You can’t have it both ways)
"Punching down" was about the watchlist section, not Cursor. You brought up Cursor, I didn't, and only after the fact.
"There we go with the smolbean stuff again": I never said that or anything like it. You're putting an argument in my mouth and then swatting it down. Twice now.
"If they're too young for criticism they're too young to be CEOs of billion dollar companies. You can't have it both ways." Scroll the watchlist. Most of those people aren't running billion dollar companies. That's the whole point. I definitely agree not all CEOs are good people and I generally agree the irrational argument all CEOs no matter of age are more likely to be net-destructive to society. That's the most extreme version of what you're saying, and we likely agree on it.
So we agree the conduct towards Cursor, and whatever other companies you want to name, is fair game. The only question is whether that extends to literally everyone on the list. I don't think it does. That's it.
You misunderstand what "punching down" or "libel" mean.
Punching down??? These people are silicon valley founders.
It can be very difficult to say no to these incentives when they are presented.
Committing fraud is never justified.
Nobody said that it was.
The regular ones are okay. The watchlist is diabolical. Unvoted as soon as I saw the watchlist.
half the watchlist is literally vaporware
The "watchlist" made me a bit uncomfortable. I get that it's satire, but putting real people's names in a list of people you're (even jokingly) watching for fraud, and assigning a "risk factor" to them (even/especially if they acknowledge it's made up) borders on defamation in my book.
If you didn't know, 30 under 30 doesn't have a selection process and you can literally apply and game your way into being mentioned. I honestly love the site and the UI. Great job! Would be nice to have some kind of thing for YC founders as well
This is funny, because I know a bunch of 30 under 30s, and I've invested in a few. There is a strong overlap between 30 under 30 and YC founders.
I consider myself a good judge of character, because not one of the one's I've invested in has committed fraud!
I somewhat expect that if Forbes is tracking people working on some of the trendiest / most exciting stuff and also trends attract frauds then this is sort of inevitable
I don't have strong feelings about the watch list (use and like several of the products on there so not that worried about them all being frauds), and I think the concept is kind of humorous
Seems easy to read the wrong way though
You should get yourself invited into YCs inner circle then, they could do with some help in that department.
Would say, the 30 under 30 list has like 600 people, not 30. So the fraud rate is quite a bit lower than headlines of seemingly 2 / 30. Its more like 2 / 600, which is maybe the baseline fraud rate?
Doesn't matter. It's always been based on vibes, now the vibe is fraud.
> Risk Index
> Mercor — 3x on 30u30
Interesting, I only know this company because they’re the leading spammer hitting my inbox in the AI job board category.
More useful for most people: is the company you are considering doing business with run by one of these fine upstanding folks?
The AI agent paradigm is promising but current implementations are fragile. The failure modes compound — each step in a chain has some probability of error, and multi-step chains amplify this exponentially.
Nice work.
In section The 30u30 Risk Index there is some css bug, text is in long lines outside of boxes.
The Nikola founder, and Anthony Levandowski for that matter (seems to have gone under the radar), have got to be the most egregious case of corruption and pay-for-play. It's so depressing that no one can do anything about it.
Levandowski is back with TK at Atoms
it's clear now his self-driving technology was never going to work at uber.
It’s amusing and bemusing how these lists have become so associated with grifters and fraudsters.
It’s gotten to the point that legit folks are wanting to steer clear of them simply because of the negative stigma with being seen as an XuX grifter.
Insightful site, I can see why it makes some aspirational people a bit uncomfortable. I'm sure they'll get over it though.
Whatever period we're supposed to call the entropic stage where postmodernism and "today's modernism" intertwine, this is THAT.
I've met several of the people on the first few pages on the watch list, and they are among the sketchiest Silicon Valley people I've met. The criteria are plausible.
the stupidity to this is that it takes a meme and treats it like facts
yes, numerous 30u30 have committed frauds, and yes this list is a paid list. but it's also full of other people who have been duped by what this list represents. compounding memes at the expense of truth just creates more problems than it solves
it’s not a paid list. Or at least it wasn’t, can’t say with certainty it didn’t change.
I know several 30u30 people in my country's list and I highly doubt they paid for anything.
Some people on the list likely paid to be on it. They likely didn't pay Forbes the company though and maybe the payment was just invites to parties.
How old is this site, because most of the reference links are dead links
Probably ran out of tokens halfway through
This seems extremely mean spirited.
Some of the comments are unnecessary, but things like this:
> wiping $40B and several people's life savings
Okay, you shouldn't dump your life savings into a cryptocurrency that claims to be doing innovative things in the first 2 days. But if that's true that guy ruined multiple people's life's work. That's a bit mean-spirited, wouldn't you say?
To put it into context, 40 billion dollars is about 22,000 average lifetime earnings of a man in the US.
Did you read the page? The first portion is whatever, but then it lists random founders with no record of doing anything nefarious based on a random ranking list. It's literally bullying.
Correct. It's abusive to apply probabilistic AI models to real human individuals and penalize them for things they haven't even done yet with no recourse.
I hope you will remember this the next time your employer asks you to build an AI moderation, credit evaluation, or anti-fraud system that will harm much larger numbers of innocent people far than one mean website.
Yes, but so? It provides a modicum of balance versus relentless hype by founders and the doting media. Even if not true it might remind people to have some healthy skepticism. The fact that your reflex is to find it "extremely mean spirited" speaks volumes. Everyone else in life gets shat apron because of other people's unscrupulous behavior, why are these people special? People should assume that there is a good chance any business venture is a fraud.
Ultimately it's one guy's opinion. It's not like he's going to ruin these people's lives or businesses.
Is the formula based on the actual probabilities. I’m pretty sure you could do that, but it’s not clear it it.
I wouldn’t work for a company where the founder/ceo was younger than 35 and had zero real world experience.
Including "Dropout" as some significant metric is truly idiotic. Meekly going through a university degree isn't indicative of being a paragon of virtue or success, and it's a safe bet that most higher end convicted fraudsters had a degree, probably an advanced one (i.e. the large majority of politicians in that group.)
I'm all for the big names and ones that have proven issues and companies like Delve to be shamed
But Cursor? Why they are operating in a risky space on tech that is all new what ethical things did they do to warrent inclusion in this shame board?
Lets not tarnish folks either -cancel culture is worrisome there
avoid people that need narcissistic supply at all cost.
I’ve been in the startup and scientific community for 25 years now and during that that time I’ve run across about two dozen 30 under 30s. Every single one with exception of two were douchebags.
I think a reason it so over represented by douchebags is because the awardees — unlike McArthur winners — are very involved in the nomination process and work to game the system.
https://thegenzeoclub.substack.com/p/forbes-30-under-30-nomi...
We're Missing the biggest frauds of all time: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
When your president is a complete fraud and con man, the whole country is tarnished - its too late for America to bounce back, we are in end stage capitalism now that Trump and his cronies are siphoning money out of the boundaries his administration establish -no different than Putin and his oligrachs except that America still has some protections in place..
percentage wise they have more billionaires than frauds on the list, at least so far.
Forbes "30 under 30" actually has like 600 people a year in 20 categories, and that's just in the USA. Add in international lists and the number rises to well over 1000. Since 2011 there have probably been, what, 10-15 thousand total "honorees"? ~12 instances of fraud in total is probably significantly below the corporate average.
And the "risk index" is idiotic. Basically just companies the creator doesn't like, or is jealous of.
There was a running total of $18.5 B in fraud from inductees. That’s about half of the size of card fraud. Maybe 2% of worldwide fraud.
Is "30 under 30" one of those schemes that require people to put themselves forward and maybe pay a fee? I've seen a bunch of "awards" (particularly for companies) that follow the same model.
Some might say a list of "30" that in fact includes thousands of people every year is itself a bit fishy.
Seems like there should be an incarcerated stamp for people who were in jail for fraud but later got out, like Shkreli.
How about a fraud prison tat? Murderers have teardrops.
To be specific, not all teardrops indicate that the person is a murderer. The teardrop is specifically in remembrance of someone else who was killed.
An empty teardrop indicates the death hasn’t been avenged; a half-filled one that someone else killed the killer; and only a full teardrop means that person killed the killer.
You see, a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Tattooed on their forehead?
I'm not saying they need to remain social pariahs. I'm saying that if you set out to collect a list of people who have doing shady things, and you are explicitly creating a category of those people who have been convicted of crimes and sent to jail, it makes little sense to break that down into "currently in jail" and "done being in jail." They are equally 30 under 30 people who were later convicted of crimes and sent to jail.
What is a person who makes a site like this thinking about when they do it?
What is their motivation? What are they trying to achieve?
They’re pointing out fraud. Is that a bad thing now?
I think it’s fair game to point out that the the 30 under 30 hype list is just that: hype. And there’s often very little substance underneath hype. And sometimes there’s outright deceit under it.
I asked for an insight into their thought process and goals. The assumption that this was something bad did not come from my words but the nature of the page itself.
I have encountered many instances of fraud being highlighted. Generally it is a valuable journalistic service that I have no problem with. Most don't send the message that they have a vindictive axe to grind like this one does.
well why was Cursor included amongst known fraudsters.. that just seems mean and warrentless
In the section that says:
100% SATIRICAL — SCORES ARE FICTIONAL AND DO NOT REFLECT REAL-WORLD FRAUD RISK
?
Personally I think it’s not a bad thing to be a little skeptical about brand new companies with double digit billion dollar valuations. If they’re legit they can more than withstand a little satirical dig.
I think the site likely started off as a meme. However it also seems to have a bit of a "hit piece" vibe to it in the last section