<story><title>The Uber Dilemma</title><url>https://stratechery.com/2017/the-uber-dilemma/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>sunsetMurk</author><text>Here is an educational game which describes this in a fun way. &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;ncase.me&amp;#x2F;trust&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;ncase.me&amp;#x2F;trust&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;I enjoyed going through these scenarios quite a bit. Now with the context of this Uber Dilemma post, it&amp;#x27;s reinforced further.</text></comment>
<story><title>The Uber Dilemma</title><url>https://stratechery.com/2017/the-uber-dilemma/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>msabalau</author><text>I am not certain I understand how the reputation damage is supposed to occur in this case.&lt;p&gt;According to the article Sequoia had a long standing willingness to play hardball. A reputation earned through consistent long term behavior.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s hard to see how a one time event in extreme circumstances leads to a change in reputation.  Presumably any rational founder would assume that any rational VC firm would act the same way in similarly extreme circumstances. One doesn&amp;#x27;t earn a reputation by being struck by lightning or spraining your ankle falling over a turkey in a city street or any unrepeated unlikely events.&lt;p&gt;And, if you believe you can clearly prove &amp;quot;fraud, break of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty&amp;quot; presumably you are only discouraging bad actors with whom you wouldn&amp;#x27;t want to get into bed with in any event.</text></comment>