How has Mr. Scoble convinced so many people to listen to him?

In over six years of following the Valley and tech in general with interest, I have heard Mr. Scoble's name so many times – but never associated with anything of substance. I've never read of any dramatic achievements, nor have I been pointed to any essays of any deep insight or poignancy. While he frequently comes up in conversation he does not seem to... do anything. Like a Paris Hilton.

From what I can tell, he worked for Microsoft, then wrote a book in which he appeared on the cover naked (Hiltonesque!)... and then convinced a bunch of people to follow him on Twitter and other social media flavors of the moment. Then Rackspace bought him an enormous tripod.

I hasten to reiterate that I have no specific ill-will toward Mr. Scoble, but I am... mystified and hope for some insight. Is this a case of wildly successful self-promotion? Is the success of the self-promotion, itself, the measure of success from which he derives attention and note? Do people latch onto him in the hopes of learning similar powers of promotion?

To me, this would be enough to immediately reject the offer. I don't believe in doing deals which make my worst case worse unless I will be in a position where I can prevent the worst case from happening -- and it doesn't sound like you'd have any way to avoid getting screwed here.

they've expressed to us that involving bankers would 'change the tone' of the discussion, whatever that means

Any time someone tries to convince you to not consult your advisors, run away immediately. If they think they're offering you a good deal, they should be encouraging you to talk to everybody.

I don't know if people realize this, but there is no actual deal between Ron/Yuri and YC. The deals are between them and the startups. We liked their plan of investing in all the startups, so we called a meeting for them to present it. But we don't have any control over which investments the startups accept. Anyone who wanted to do what Ron and Yuri have done could have done it at any time, whether YC liked the idea or not, simply by making the offer publicly.

While we're on the subject, Sequoia, which we do have a deal with (they're our biggest LP), also doesn't have any effect on the startups we pick.

I've often thought some fees should be adjusted for wealth. For example, a quarter a day isn't really enough to get me to take my library books back on time. Maybe for me it should be $2 a day.

The consistent theme in all such cases is to make sure that those who have built value get non-forfeitable equity as a reward while those who need to prove themselves going forward get equity that can be forfeited.

If you have built true value, then, of $10M and you take your payment in stock that is 100% forfeitable, you set it up where you can be cheated out of all the value you have built with little or no legal recourse.

This is a HUGE red flag. I have seen founders do such deals and have begged and implored them, at the very least, to insist on 100% acceleration clauses in their employment arrangements should they be terminated without good cause. In the one case where the founders went through anyway without such protection, the company (a prominent public company) wound up terminating one of the main founders within months and all he got was a few crumbs for years worth of effort.

Check with a good M&A lawyer on this and then use your best judgment. It is ultimately your call, whatever the legal risks. But do it with open eyes and that means getting good help in assessing what those risks are.