A digital tempest recently swept through Silicon Valley, ignited by a public warning from Suhail Doshi, founder of Playground AI. His post on X (formerly Twitter) about a developer named Soham Parekh allegedly working for three to four startups simultaneously has unearthed a complex tale of deception and sparked a vital conversation about ethics, transparency, and the very nature of work in the tech world.
This incident, focused on an employee’s alleged deceit, stands in fascinating contrast to a common, accepted practice: founders and executives serving on the boards of multiple companies. Examining these two situations reveals the nuanced ethical lines drawn within the industry.
Why was Soham Parekh fired?
The controversy erupted when Mr. Doshi accused Soham Parekh, a developer based in India, of deceiving and “scamming” various startups, many from the prestigious Y Combinator accelerator.
Mr. Doshi stated he had fired Parekh within a week of hiring him a year prior for dishonesty. The tweet opened a floodgate, with other tech founders and executives sharing strikingly similar experiences.
Founders from companies like Lindy, Fleet AI, and Antimetal came forward, recounting how they had hired Mr. Parekh, impressed by his intelligence and interview skills, only to later discover his multiple commitments and terminate his employment.
A common thread emerged: Mr. Parekh was exceptionally adept at navigating the hiring process, often described as “sharp” and “likable,” but his performance would allegedly falter due to missed meetings and delayed work, a logical consequence of juggling several full-time roles.
The resume he presented, listing impressive tenures at various AI startups, was dismissed by Mr. Doshi as “probably 90% fake.” The scandal has highlighted the vulnerabilities in remote hiring and raised serious questions about due diligence.
How come founders serve on multiple boards?
In contrast to Parekh’s alleged covert moonlighting, the practice of founders, CEOs, and other executives serving on the boards of other companies is a standard and often celebrated aspect of corporate governance. This arrangement, far from being clandestine, is a matter of public record, disclosed in company filings and biographies.
The fundamental difference lies in the nature of the role and the principle of transparency. A board member’s role is not executional but one of oversight and strategic guidance. They are not involved in day-to-day tasks but are legally bound by a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company’s shareholders. The legal standards obligate them to be diligent and avoid conflicts of interest.
What’s the difference between a moonlighter and an executive on multiple boards?
The core distinction between the employee moonlighter and the multi-board founder is deception versus disclosure. Mr. Parekh’s alleged actions are viewed as unethical because they represent a breach of contract and trust with employers who believed they were paying for a dedicated, full-time employee. Each company was unknowingly receiving a fraction of the commitment for which they were compensating him.
Conversely, a founder’s presence on another board is fully transparent. The companies involved are aware of these affiliations. In fact, a director is often sought after precisely because of their broad experience and the insights gained from their involvement in other successful ventures. Their value lies not in the 40-hour work week of an employee but in the high-level perspective they bring to the boardroom a few times a year.
A significant concern in both scenarios is the potential for a conflict of interest. For a moonlighting employee, especially one working for competing startups, the risk is direct and immediate. Sharing proprietary information, even inadvertently, or prioritizing one employer’s work over another’s becomes an unavoidable ethical minefield.
For board members, while the risk of conflict also exists, it is managed through a structured framework. Board members are typically barred from serving on the boards of direct competitors.
What about conflict of interest?
Furthermore, they are legally and ethically required to declare any potential conflicts and recuse themselves from any discussions or votes where their impartiality could be questioned. While critics raise concerns about “overboarding” — directors spreading themselves too thin across too many boards—this is a question of capacity, not a clandestine operation.
Ultimately, the case of Soham Parekh serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of integrity and trust in the employer-employee relationship. The backlash against his alleged actions is a direct response to the perceived dishonesty.
The accepted practice of founders serving on multiple boards, however, operates within a system of transparency and legal accountability. It underscores a key principle in the business world: dual roles are not inherently immoral, but deception is.
The conversation sparked by this incident forces a valuable examination of the ethical frameworks that govern the tech industry, drawing a firm line between strategic, open collaboration and a deceptive breach of commitment.
