I'm talking about might, not right. Half of Wall Street was committing fraud in the years leading up to the financial crisis, and it was a hell of a lot worse than anything Conrad did. How many of them have been held accountable the way he was? From that perspective, who are the real "rockstars"?
Pro-founder does not mean they drop all standards and expectations. I'm not familiar with their entire portfolio, but using the Zenefits case (where the founder is accused of fraud) is a poor argument to support your claim that they are not pro-founder.
I'm not saying they are or aren't profounder. I just think Zenefits is not a good example to use to make sweeping accusations about the firm.
You can be pro-founder and still toss frauds out of office. This is a spectrum and a16z appears to be more founder friendly than 90s era VCs who were more likely to be ex-bankers and quicker to replace founders.
