Ries explicitly acknowledges 'a darkness in our industry that we often don't talk about' — short-termism, governance failure, and founder incentives that reward the opposite of what Lean was supposed to encourage. His new book Incorruptible is an attempt to restore the ethical scaffolding that got stripped away when MVPs and pivots became cargo-culted vocabulary.
Argues that 'What's the MVP?' is asked so often it has stopped meaning anything, and that an entire generation of engineers and PMs learned the trade from Lean Startup the way an earlier cohort learned from Mythical Man-Month. The methodology, divorced from its original intent, became a justification for shipping garbage fast.
Commenters in the AMA thread are filing fifteen years of receipts: boards that fired founders for refusing growth hacks, and dual-class share structures sold as founder protection that ended up isolating founders rather than empowering them. The critique is that the governance layer above the methodology is where the corruption actually happened.
Notes that the critique lands harder because Ries isn't an outside skeptic — he authored the playbook that the industry ran on. A 621-point AMA with substantive author engagement (rather than book-tour deflection) signals that the practitioner community is ready to hear self-criticism from the methodology's own creator in a way they wouldn't from a hostile critic.
Eric Ries — the guy whose 2011 book *The Lean Startup* turned 'MVP', 'pivot', and 'build-measure-learn' into standard-issue startup vocabulary — showed up on Hacker News this week for an AMA tied to his new book, *Incorruptible*. The thread hit 621 points and a few hundred comments before the day was out, which for a non-launch, non-drama AMA is genuinely loud.
The pitch is unusually self-critical for a returning bestseller author. Ries opens by acknowledging that in the fifteen years since *The Lean Startup* shipped, he's watched the methodology get applied across big companies, NGOs, governments, and tiny startups — and he's also watched it get warped. He explicitly calls out 'a darkness in our industry that we often don't talk about' — short-termism, governance failure, and founder incentives that quietly reward the opposite of what Lean was supposed to encourage.
The AMA itself is doing the heavy lifting. Commenters — many of them YC alumni and second-time founders — are using the thread less to ask questions and more to file fifteen years of receipts: cargo-culted MVPs that shipped garbage and called it 'learning', boards that fired founders for refusing growth hacks, dual-class share structures sold as founder protection that turned into founder isolation. Ries is engaging substantively with most of them, which is a meaningful difference from the usual book-tour AMA.
There's a generation of engineers and PMs who learned the trade from *The Lean Startup* the way an earlier cohort learned it from *The Mythical Man-Month*. The vocabulary is in every standup. 'What's the MVP?' is asked so often it's stopped meaning anything. The most pointed thing Ries is doing in *Incorruptible* is admitting that the methodology, stripped of its ethical scaffolding, became a license to ship sloppy things fast and call it science.
The critique lands harder because it's not coming from the usual anti-VC quarter. Ries isn't Ed Zitron. He helped build the modern startup playbook — he sat on boards, advised the Obama administration, ran the LTSE (Long-Term Stock Exchange). When he says the governance plumbing is broken, he's describing rooms he's been in. The HN thread surfaces the specifics: founder-friendly term sheets that quietly hand control to later-stage investors, 'growth' metrics that optimize for the next round rather than the next decade, board composition that makes principled disagreement a firing offense.
Compare this to the dominant 2024–2026 founder discourse, which has been almost entirely about AI: how fast can you ship, how cheap is your inference, what's your moat against a foundation model that subsumes your product next quarter. The Ries critique is orthogonal and uncomfortable. If your only competitive answer is 'ship faster', you've already accepted the frame that made Lean a parody of itself. The interesting founders in the AMA aren't arguing about model choice — they're asking how to build cap tables and boards that survive a five-year bet.
There's also a quieter signal in the timing. *Incorruptible* is shipping into a market where late-stage SaaS multiples have compressed, where 'growth at all costs' is finally being repriced, and where the AI cohort is about to learn — in real time — what happens when your runway depends on a CapEx-heavy infrastructure bet rather than a software gross margin. The book's argument is essentially that the governance failures of the SaaS era are about to repeat at higher stakes, with worse downside.
If you're a senior engineer or a tech lead, the operational takeaway isn't 'throw out the MVP'. It's that the *measure* and *learn* halves of build-measure-learn were never optional. A two-week ship cycle with no honest feedback loop isn't Lean — it's just shipping. If your team's 'experiments' don't have pre-registered success criteria and a real willingness to kill the feature, you're doing theater.
If you're a founder or considering becoming one, the AMA's most useful content is the cap-table and board section. Multiple commenters surface specific patterns to watch: protective provisions that quietly give Series B veto rights over a Series A pivot, drag-along clauses that force a sale at the wrong price, and the now-classic 'independent' board seat that turns out to be an investor proxy. Ries' answer in several places is the same: read every term, model the failure modes, and assume good intent will not save you when incentives diverge.
If you're a PM, the meta-lesson is that 'data-driven' became a synonym for 'metric-driven' became a synonym for 'whatever the board's favorite chart is going up'. The Lean idea was that data should be in service of a hypothesis tied to a mission. Most product orgs reversed that: the mission drifted to fit whatever the dashboard rewards.
*Incorruptible* will get the usual book-tour cycle, but the more interesting artifact is the AMA itself — a public, searchable list of fifteen years of failure modes in the dominant founder methodology, annotated by the person who wrote it. Read the thread before you read the book. If the next decade of startups is going to be built on AI infrastructure with eight-figure CapEx and ten-year horizons, the governance and incentive lessons Ries is naming aren't optional reading — they're the operating manual for not getting captured by your own cap table.
Hey gang, you may remember me from such books as _The Lean Startup_ and _The Startup Way_.<p>It's been fifteen years since I wrote The Lean Startup, and in that time I've seen some things. I
→ read on Hacker NewsA core principal from Toyota Lean Production and Demings TQM, is that a critical way to increase quality is to address waste coming upstream, including the waste of fixing defects.The argument that “AI runs so quickly” reminds me of the American manufacturing technique of making a machine lunch out
> how a handful of companies (like Costco[..]) have successfully been structured to resist gravity"I came to (Jim Sinegal) once and I said, ‘Jim, we can’t sell this hot dog for a buck fifty," Jelineck recalled[..]. "We are losing our rear ends.’ And he said, ‘If you raise the effin
Eric - I've worked for NASA, ATT, IBM, HP, Amazon, and Google, not to mention a couple of startups that I started in between. None of them (except the startups, but they were brief) stayed true to their original mission. I haven't read your new book, but IMO, it's because the founders
Just dropping in to thank you for writing this book and raising awareness around it. A lot of builders are really disillusioned by how "corruptible" the tech industry has been.I wrote a blog post called "Revenue Model is More Important than Culture" (it made the #1 spot on Hacker
Top 10 dev stories every morning at 8am UTC. AI-curated. Retro terminal HTML email.
I'll give you a read.If you haven't read it already, I strongly recommend the Knapp Commission Report. Its about police corruption in New York City in 1972, but its lessons on systemic and institutionalized corruption are highly transferable to other contexts.Probably the most common naive