Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

High-tech founds need not sacrifice the moral high ground to achieve success

Sam Bankman-Fried

FTX's Sam Bankman-Fried showed what can happen when a high-tech entrepreneur does not practice good governance.

Gotham/GC Images via Getty Images

Pruthi is an associate professor of entrepreneurship at San Jose State University. She is also the lead author of “Global Entrepreneurship and Innovation” and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.

Sam Bankman-Fried, co-founder and former CEO of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, was convicted in November on seven criminal counts after a month-long trial following the company’s collapse last year. Specifically, Bankman-Fried was convicted of forging financial statements to steal $10 billion deposited by customers in FTX so he could finance political contributions, venture capital investments and luxury real estate purchases.

His misconduct is not to be confused with the mistakes early-stage founders are prone to making. Ethical and responsible governance based on accountability to stakeholders and transparency of information is the hallmark of a liberal and democratic civil society and political system. Yet, in this age of rapidly growing high-tech start-ups, inadvertent breaches of corporate governance are likely to become more rampant unless founders understand the importance of full disclosure and take the lead in ensuring compliance with the ethical and legal code.


The liabilities of newness and smallness along with high personal investments of time, money and energy present difficult trade-offs at critical junctures in the lives of new ventures. Founders’ relative lack of awareness of the law coupled with pressures from stakeholders including co-founders, competitors, investors, governments and even their own families, make them especially vulnerable to ethical and legal misconduct.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The challenge of sudden growth, coupled with pressing capacity constraints, often causes burnout leading to a possible faux pas. Bankman-Fried worked more than 10 hours a day during the 2021 bull market, overseeing several parts of the company. FTX’s difficulties of opening a bank account and its reliance on Alameda Research, another of Bankman-Fried’s companies, to deposit funds are well known. While these operational gaffes may serve as warning signs to other start-ups of the dangers of the lack of attention, clearly it was far more than just negligence in the case of Bankman-Fried.

Safeguarding against misconduct is important to avoid heavy penalties and the loss of credibility – but it can even threaten entrepreneurial firms’ very existence in the extreme. Theranos, a private healthcare and life sciences company based in Palo Alto, California, is a case in point. According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, co-founder Elizabeth Holmes defrauded doctors, patients, and investors by making false claims about her company’s ability to provide accurate and reliable blood tests and results. Once a rising icon of success, Holmes was convicted in 2022 and sentenced to 11 years in prison for her actions.

Early-stage ventures are not the sole violators of the ethical and legal code; their more established counterparts are as guilty. Elon Musk’s electric vehicle maker, Tesla, has been fined for air quality violations, criticized for alleged child labor involvement in its supply chain, and disproportionate director’s pay and poor tax conduct, and sued for widespread and ongoing racial abuse of its Black employees at one of its manufacturing plants. More recently, the Federal Trade Commission and 17 state attorneys general sued Jeff Bezos’ Amazon for using unfair strategies to stop rivals and sellers from lowering their prices and maintaining monopoly power. Amazon allegedly made $1 billion by using a secret algorithm to raise its prices while still staying lower than its competitors.

To say that dealing with governance in entrepreneurial firms has been sidestepped would be misleading. While state agencies work tirelessly to ensure compliance with the law, fast-growing start-ups draw inspiration from their publicly listed counterparts to train employees and institute written codes of conduct. Yet formal mechanisms have not prevented companies from violating the very principles they have espoused.

Google’s famous “Don’t Be Evil” tagline did not deter co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page from partnering with the Chinese government to sell Google Analytics in that country despite the government previously imposing strict censorship requirements on Google’s search engine technology. No surprise that the “Don’t be Evil” stand has since gone missing from Google’s Code of Conduct.

The question of reawakening the consciousness of the entrepreneurial firm remains. The onus is on the individual founder to promote a strong ethical culture and lead by example. Creating and sustaining flat, non-hierarchical organizations, and building trust, transparency, and open communication with stakeholders are informal safeguards that founders can usefully combine with more formal mechanisms to ensure accountability. Exponential growth of the entrepreneurial firm need not come at the expense of compromising integrity so long as the conscientious founder is truly serious about treading the moral high ground.

Read More

Dictionary definition of tariff
Would replacing the income tax with higher tariffs help ‘struggling Americans’?
Devonyu/Getty Images

Could Trump’s tariffs have unintended consequences that hurt America?

The first few weeks of the Trump administration have been head-spinning. President Trump and his team were well-prepared to launch their policy agenda, signing over 50 executive orders, the most in a president's first month in more than 40 years. A major focus has been economic policy, first with immigration raids, which were quickly followed by announcements of tariffs on imports from America’s biggest trade partners.

The tariff announcements have followed a meandering and confusing course. President Trump announced the first tariffs on February 1, but within 24 hours, he suspended the tariffs on Mexico and Canada in favor of “negotiations.” Mexico and Canada agreed to enforce their borders better to stop migrants and fentanyl imports, which the Trump administration called a victory. Despite the triumphalist rhetoric, the enforcement measures were substantially the same as what both countries were already planning to do.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Silicon Valley to Capitol Hill: The Ascendancy of Indian Americans

The flag of India.

Canva Images

From Silicon Valley to Capitol Hill: The Ascendancy of Indian Americans

In the intricate landscape of global geopolitics, the ascendancy of Indian Americans stands as a quiet yet transformative force—a phenomenon that demands serious consideration. While traditional paradigms of power focus on military might or economic clout, the strategic leverage wielded by this diaspora is rewriting the rules of global influence. India’s economic trajectory reflects its ambitions on the global stage. Contributing 4% to global GDP today, the nation is poised to become the world’s third $10 trillion economy within two decades. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts India will account for 18% of total global growth by decade’s end, a rise that challenges established economic hierarchies.

Trade data between India and the United States reflects the growing interdependence: In 2020, U.S. imports to India stood at $51.3 billion. This figure grew to $80.1 billion in 2024, alongside a trade deficit swelling from $24.2 billion to $41.5 billion. This trade expansion is mirrored by Indian-American professionals dominating key sectors of the U.S. economy. With a median household income of $119,000, Indian Americans outperform national averages and hold influential roles across corporate and governmental institutions. CEOs of global giants like Microsoft, Google, and Citibank exemplify this trend, along with leadership roles in companies like Apple, Intel, and Dell.

Keep ReadingShow less
Will Trump’s immigration crackdown be good or bad for the economy?

Roofers on an 8-12 pitch roof laying under-layment before installing roof tile. Roofer is throwing safety line out of the way.

Getty Images//TerryJ

Will Trump’s immigration crackdown be good or bad for the economy?

In his first days in office, President Donald Trump wasted no time showing he means business, announcing a crackdown on immigration. He declared a national emergency, signed a raft of executive orders, sent 1,500 active duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, and his Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has initiated raids on thousands of migrants across the nation.

The issue of immigration has always been multifaceted, impacting both the economy and human rights, not to mention the expensive logistical operation necessary to deport millions of people. But my discussion below is focused specifically on this question: what will happen to the economy if many of the immigrant workers (who are also consumers and taxpayers) who fill many jobs in the construction, restaurant, health care, agriculture, and elder care industries, suddenly are whisked away?

Keep ReadingShow less
Tariffs: Not a tax, and not free money

United States trade cargo container hanging against clouds background

Getty Images//Iskandar Zulkarnean

Tariffs: Not a tax, and not free money

During the recent election season, there was much talk of Trump’s plan to lay tariffs on the importation of foreign goods. Pundits, politicians, and journalists to the left of center consistently referred to them as a tax on the American people. Many of those to the right of center, especially those of the MAGA contingent, seemed to imply they are a pain-free way for the federal government to raise money.

Some correctly said that the country essentially ran on tariffs in its early history. Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary and arguably the godfather of our initial financial system, successfully proposed and implemented a tariff system with two goals in mind. Fund the young American government and protect young American businesses against competition from established foreign companies. The second bill signed by President George Washington was a broad tariff bill.

Keep ReadingShow less