That's facile and ignores that VC is supposed to be a vetting gatekeeper: the reason they keep a fraction of all the money going through their accounts is because they're supposedly vetting the investment opportunities and have money and access to knowledge as necessary to validate claims, etc. If they're not doing this, what is the value add the VC company is providing, other than being a skimmer on the money flows?
The reality is that as long as there is no liability for passing the buck (ie the scammer's and middemen's beloved caveat emptor), the system continues to encourage bad players.
My point is that no matter how much due diligence you perform, there is still a chance to be deceived. No amount of money could get you to 100% diligence and cover every edge case.
There is liability for knowingly passing the buck. VCs have been sued before.
The reality is that as long as there is no liability for passing the buck (ie the scammer's and middemen's beloved caveat emptor), the system continues to encourage bad players.