Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

Your scenario is confusingly formulated, but it ultimately deals with moral risk.

If you suspect that it's fraud, you should seriously consider whether you want to be a part of it, even if you can't prove the fraud. Examples are companies centered around cryptocurrencies: not all of them end up being rugpulls, but enough of them do, making every new company potentially morally risky for each engineer.

If you only suspect that it's an overly ambitious project, but not fraud, the moral risk is obviously lower. Sure, it may be economically risky - as all unproven business models are - or you may discover the fraud later (like the author apparently did). Examples are startups like SpaceX in its initial stages: there was nothing ostensibly fraudulent in trying to make and sell better rockets, just very economically risky.

Obviously, the devil is in the details, but if you're honest with yourself, you should do your due diligence (i.e., does it seem like fraud or not) and determine your moral risk appetite. It's up to the wider society to reduce and punish the unacceptable levels of moral risk, regardless of the appetites of individual engineers.

People want more government control, but when governments take more control the press tells the people that it's bad and the people acquiesce.

In local forums, so often you see (paraphrasing a pattern) "why are the government interfering with landlords, they should stop so many barbers opening instead". That is, why are the gov interfering in property markets, instead they should interfere in property markets AND plan the economy (where economy here means 'financial system').

The people promoting planned economy without realising it are always 'right wing' 'all Communists should be shot'-types. It's fascinating.

A lot (all?) VCs charge some form of fees (typically capped at 20% of the entire fund, split in various percentages through 4 years investing, 4 divesting period). These fees often are only paid out only based on the actively deployed capital, and are not the only incentive: the main incentive is shares in gains (carry).

The reason they're based on actively deployed capital isn't that the LPs (people who give VCs money to invest) want them to deploy the money in a stupid way, but they definitely don't want VCs to get the fees if the money wasn't invested. Therefore, VCs:

1. Want to raise as much money as possible 2. Want to deploy as much money as possible

Ideally, as quickly as possible.

There's nothing fraudulent about the idea of calculating VCs fees in various scenarios.

There's however the extremely dodgy part of the portfolio companies paying their investor (VC) fees for anything. This is an obvious conflict of interests, and should never happen, but I personally know of multiple VC funds here in Europe (will skip the names to not get sued, lol) who base their entire operational model on funding shitty companies that have 0 chance of success, charging them for the office space and often "shared services" they provide. Unsure if this is a regulatory overlooking, or something that's deliberately legal, but IMHO shouldn't be. Probably they talked their LPs into agreeing to this on paper.

Because they will work on new projects, which are considered as CAPEX.

Basically big4 and accounting firms fucked worldwide organizations.

The person you're talking to literally spoke to lawyers and followed their advice. If you know better, maybe you should work in government law.