> I really refuse to believe you are a real person acting in good faith. Bur for the sake of your site, the links of your "exhaustive research"(I supppose the first page in some google search) are:

Looks like you didn't read the sentence what I said was that I did not do exhaustive research -- the implication being that I'd find more similar deals if I did some digging.

> 1) An article mentioning how China paid a substantial amount of Euros for a majority holding in the Piraeus port, when the European nations were squeezing Greece. According to Varoufakis, the initial deal was even better for Greece, which China investing a very risky 1.5 billion in greek bonds (essentialy Junk)

So what you've done here is ignore the result and emphasize the risks that China took in the deal. They paid 1.5B to now own a majority stake and control of that port. What do you think that port was worth, because 1.5B seems cheap to me -- you could argue that they made a shrewd business deal when the rest of Europe failed to do so. But the deal is only shrewd when you consider that they became majority shareholder and started exerting control on it.

When has YC ever taken over a company or exerted excessive influence? Maybe the stories are out there but I haven't seen many (any, really) of them.

My point is that there is a pattern to many of China's deals -- buy for pennies on the dollar/make outlandish loans with risky prospects, then repossess strategic assets. It's a shrewd business practice, but generally when we see this in VC land we call it "vulture capital" -- YC is not vulture capital.

> 2. The second link dont mention China at all, it is just an article about the oil exploitation in Ghana and how it had presumably failed to bring the promised goods to the people in the villages where oil is prospected. Even if true, the promises are made by local politicians, not Chinese bureaucrats.

Uhhh did you watch the video? I assume not. Did you see the part where China promised to train and hire local Ghana workers but then flew in Chinese people instead? That must have been the local politicians' doing too.

> 3) The SriLankan links is about how a journalist feel humilliated because China has been granted the lease of a SriLankan port after lendings up to 5 billion dollars have gone unpaid.

Doesn't matter how the journalist feels -- the question is what lenders do when the debt is in arrears. Have you ever heard of YC taking over a business after it's stake goes to nothing? Lenders have the right to foreclose/take harsh measures, but the question is are they likely to? I'd rather borrow money from YC than China.

> So these are the kind of links you are bringing to the table, multibillion dollar deals in China get some leases, and you are compariung them with 125k USD for 7% of the company. Last time I checked China does not own 7% of Greece, Sri-Lanka or Ghana, so I must conclude you are a dumb person letting his latent racism to take over or you are aware you are acting on bad faith and you just dont care.

Did I not state that there is some translation is necessary? The scale is different, but the spirit of the lender is the same.

China doesn't own 7% of Greece, but they definitely own a majority share of that port, and Greece is now paying the price (which again, is within China's right, but the comparison was China and YC as lenders).

These business deals stink of vulture capital and no matter how bad an opinion you harbor about YC, they are very clearly not that. This whole argument is farcical, arguing seriously that someone should take investment from a random country (much less China)'s VCs, much less a country known for making deals like this (and the debtors taking to media to express their misfortune) over YC in tech is stupid.