According to the New York Post (September 24, 2026), a privately circulated document has become an informal warning system for women navigating Silicon Valley’s startup ecosystem. The spreadsheet reportedly includes prominent investors and people connected to major technology and AI companies, with entries allegedly including accounts of drugging, sexual assault, and rape.
The caveat belongs here, and it is not a formality. The document has not been made publicly available, and its contents, inclusion criteria and the accuracy of individual allegations cannot be independently assessed.
The allegations have not been established in court. The people allegedly named have not been identified in any reporting reviewed for this article.
So why does the list exist at all? Anonymous sources told the Post that women fear retaliation, professional blacklisting and losing investor relationships if they report through official channels. One source described concern that pursuing a legal case and losing could jeopardize future access to Silicon Valley funding.
Think of it as a private Yelp for workplace danger, except the stakes are not a bad meal.
Where Networking and Residential Life Collide
AI hacker houses blur the line between your employer, your landlord and your party host, and that overlap has consequences.
The list’s emergence follows New York Times reporting on AI “hacker houses,” cited in the Post’s September 21, 2026 coverage. These are shared homes where founders, engineers and investors live together, hold parties and build the professional relationships that shape careers and funding opportunities.
Hillsborough police records reviewed in that reporting logged 37 incidents at AGI House since 2022, with at least 17 involving complaints about large parties. That figure requires precision: a logged incident is a recorded complaint, not a confirmed offense or an adjudicated crime.
Yehong Zhu, founder of startup Zette, told the Post she filed a December 2021 police report accusing a former member of the Genesis hacker house of rape and assault. The case reportedly remained under investigation and the accused could not be located. The allegations have not been adjudicated in the sources reviewed for this article.
Zhu also told the Post that a house organizer discouraged her from going to police. People in the industry, she said, declined to help locate the person she accused.
“Some of them were very prominent names, you know? People who were famous investors.” Anonymous source, as reported by the New York Post
The speaker’s identity and the underlying list are not independently verifiable.
A Spreadsheet Is Not a Safety System
The industry has applied extraordinary rigor to technical infrastructure and almost none to the safety of the people building it.
Accelerators, venture firms, event organizers and hacker house operators have a clear responsibility to build formal reporting channels that do not require a founder to risk her career to use them. A private document circulating among trusted contacts as a warning mechanism is not a safety system. It is evidence that no adequate system exists.
The structural problem runs deeper than any single house or firm. In this ecosystem, your investor may also be your landlord, your event host and your professional reference. Reporting misconduct to any one of those nodes risks damaging every other relationship in the network simultaneously.
That architecture is a design choice. It can be redesigned.
The due-process tension is real and should not be dismissed. Informal lists carry genuine risks: false or incomplete accusations with no recourse for those named. Both things can be true at the same time. Sources told the Post that some women perceive formal channels as too dangerous to use. The list itself, however, is not a substitute for verified accountability.
What the industry can actually do is not mysterious. It can establish independent investigation channels with genuine complainant protections, clear codes of conduct for shared residences and accelerator programs, and third-party reporting mechanisms that sit entirely outside the investor relationship. None of that requires a breakthrough in technology or policy.
It requires the same organizational seriousness the industry already applies to latency, load times and churn rates.
The technology sector has not applied that same seriousness to the safety of people working inside it. A spreadsheet shared quietly between trusted contacts is not a solution. It is an indictment.
