Bhavye Khetan, an Indian-origin UC Berkeley graduate, has sparked a heated debate about the startup and venture capital ecosystem. Khetan claimed he received responses from 27 out of 34 venture capitalists by using a fake persona and key buzzwords such as “Stanford,” “AI,” and “Palantir.”
In a viral post, Khetan criticized the industry, asserting that investor interest can be generated with just the right buzzwords and credentials—even without a real product, pitch, or plan. “I made a fake founder persona.
No product. No pitch. No deck.
Just: Stanford CS, Ex-Palantir and used the word ‘AI’ three times. Sent cold emails to 34 VCs. 27 replied.
Four asked for a call. This game is rigged in ways most people don’t understand,” he wrote. Khetan’s experiment has ignited a conversation about the superficial nature of startup culture.
By employing these high-impact terms, he underscored the efficacy of branding over substance in the entrepreneurial landscape. The stunt revealed how easily superficial signals could override genuine product value and strategic planning, exposing flaws in the venture capital community’s evaluation processes.
Indian-origin grad exposes VC superficiality
The post received over 330,000 views, and reactions were mixed. Some were shocked by the results, with one user joking, “Who would have thought having shiny logos on a resume makes people more likely to wanna talk to you.” Others shared similar stories, with one commenter writing, “I heard about a guy who faked his CV with similar founder, tech nonsense and landed major consulting and then executive jobs this way. Entire climb up the ladder he delegated key tasks he had no idea how to do himself to underlings.
Now he’s CFO at a Fortune 500, clearing $500K a year.”
However, critics argued that using actual prestigious institutions and companies on your resume does lend credibility and that a lie like this wouldn’t hold up for long. “This is stupid. You lied.
Stanford is meaningful. Palantir is meaningful. AI is meaningful.
The only person acting inappropriately is you,” remarked one commenter. Another added, “I don’t think it’s rigged; if you lie, of course, they will take your call, but I think you won’t get past that when they figure out you are lying pretty quickly.”
Khetan’s actions have drawn a mixed response. While some applaud the creativity and highlight it as a wake-up call for investors to delve deeper, others are concerned about the ethical implications.
Critics argue that his approach undermines the integrity of authentic entrepreneurs who rely on innovation and clear vision rather than hollow buzzwords to secure funding. Whether viewed as a necessary wake-up call for a superficial investment landscape or a controversial PR stunt, Khetan’s experiment has undoubtedly shed light on the need for deeper scrutiny and substantive evaluation within the startup investment community. The discussion continues across various online platforms as industry insiders and observers debate the implications of Khetan’s actions on the future of venture capital funding.