For the record, Airbnb has raised 3 rounds of funding, so YC's percentage is probably closer to 2% than 6% (0.06 * 0.7^3). Other than that I don't see how your point is relevant. Sure, I get that YC's share of Airbnb is valuable. But it's dwarfed by others who have more power both formally and informally.
You said roughly "other people have more money on the line, so YC should let them do it"
This is wrong in far more than 5 ways, but we will start with 5.
1. Your model of "money on the line" doesn't seem to account for diminishing marginal utility (if a billionaire has $1 million at risk, and a millionaire has $1k at risk, the risk is greater for the millionaire even though the percentage risk is equal).
2. Your model doesn't seem to account for relative portfolio size (if a billionaire risks $1 million, and a $10 millionaire also risks $1 million, the risk is greater for the $10 millionaire)
3. Your model doesn't seem to account for the opportunity cost of time (YC seems to like/have time for talking to the press about YC companies, something that many VC firms don't)
4. Your model doesn't seem to account for relative skill (YC seems better at talking to the press than most VC firms)
5. Your model doesn't seem to account for compensation options (if YC doesn't feel that time spent would be positive ROI, AirBnB or the other investors might be able to pay YC to do it)
In short, my coming on HN to read interesting business discussion, only to find thoughts like "Saying that YC should handle this would be like suggesting that Bill Gate's Harvard fraternity should clean up Microsoft's faux pas (That's a bit hyperbolic, but I think you see what I'm getting at.)" is like being invited by a friend to the symphony, and showing up to discover a five year old alternating between playing a xylophone and eating wood glue (That's a bit hyperbolic, but I think you see what I'm getting at).
