@awxjack: This is so stupid so I'm going to stop in a bit but one more time as you continue to smear me in public. We follow the …

This is so stupid so I’m going to stop in a bit but one more time as you continue to smear me in public.

We follow the law. You clearly don’t understand it, or Airwallex.

The statute you’re citing applies to certain social-media and content-sharing applications, including TikTok. It does not designate every company with foreign investors a “foreign adversary controlled entity,” and it contains no senior-executive test. You invented that part. Airwallex is an Australian-founded, U.S.-regulated financial services company.

And even if we humor the Keith Random Threshold, we clear it: under 20% China ownership on the cap table, no global executives based there. You built a test, applied it to a statute it doesn’t appear in, and we pass it anyway.

The basic error running through all of this is that you are reading a contract as if it were a network diagram. The entity named in a set of terms is the one that owes the customer a legal obligation. It says nothing about where data lives. No US customer data is stored in Hong Kong.

On roles we are not hiring global roles in China. I don’t owe you an explanation on any of this but I feel like I have to set the record straight because you constantly spread fake news about us. And by the way a job title is not an access permission.

Check your own footnotes while you’re there. The entire role count rests on four listings. Three are archived links that do not resolve. The fourth is a man who has been based in Singapore for five years.

Take the adjectives out of the letter and it describes any global payments company whose public documents have been scraped.

Keep going if you like, anyone can gather published facts about a business operating across a hundred markets and arrange them into something ominous. It is not the same as being right. We’ve gone through it line by line, and the ownership figure alone is materially misstated. It was also addressed to the Treasury Secretary, not to us.

None of it is new. Every one of these claims has been circulating in an opposition research memo for months, starting immediately after you launched your campaign against us on X.

I have real respect for the Congressman and for the Committee’s work. We have reached out, and I will keep engaging in Washington on these questions, as I have throughout. That is where they belong and that is where they get answered. I know you’re very powerful, but you are not Washington, and I don’t owe you a damn thing.

And no I’m not going to debate you. I don’t think you’re honest and I don’t think you argue in good faith so there’s nothing to be gained from it.

I honestly don’t understand why any founder in Silicon Valley would take this guy’s money. And I really don’t understand why @vkhosla would choose to take back this douchebag from Founders Fund.