> Right, that's why I'm also working with the assumption they are legit. Just too high-profile not to be.
People like Madoff etc. were super high-profile and ran scams worth billions for decades. Being high-profile was part of their strategy. So no, AngelList being "high-profile" and not seeing any evidence of fraud for a decade doesn't mean anything. To be clear, I'm not accusing AngelList of fraud - just trying to make a point.
Madoff was successful in big part because there was no one that could independently verify anything. (and apparently the government botched multiple investigations after referrals from suspicious people).
That part of AngelList is about coordinating between lots of parties i.e. companies that seek funding and people providing funding.
I'm not sure how you could keep a scam going by publicly telling people that you've invested in hundreds of legit startups on your behalf without a single one of those startups saying "wait a minute, we have no idea what AngelList is and we never got any money from them".
People like Madoff etc. were super high-profile and ran scams worth billions for decades. Being high-profile was part of their strategy. So no, AngelList being "high-profile" and not seeing any evidence of fraud for a decade doesn't mean anything. To be clear, I'm not accusing AngelList of fraud - just trying to make a point.