You can agree, disagree, or be indifferent here, but what’s undeniable about the suspicion of this post is that the truth, regardless of how vague it appears, straddles its content with no contrition about what is being conveyed to those who are viewing it.
The difference between contracting with founders of black-owned ideas versus white-owned ones is that the latter has an invisible exclusionary clause for failure, which imparts that he inherits a right to raise, invest, squander, and/or lose hundreds of millions of dollars with substantial answerability obligations should the unfortunate event occur. However, he’d have to undergo minimum disciplinary action upon the irreparable financial loss that caused major illiquidity and harm to corporate assets and investors, and—under special circumstances—the person (he) who brought about the catastrophic financial loss may be entitled to a lucrative golden parachute provided that he doesn’t buck the corrupt system of institutional racism that for centuries he’s been knowingly or unknowingly conveniently a part of through race and cultural wealth safeguarding initiatives.
This may also interest you: “Man Behind U.S. Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Decision Sues VC Fund Supporting Black-Women-Owned Businesses” | And this, the men and women behind Fairview Capital Partners. | And this, “Racial Equity and Racial Equality: What Do They Mean?“