A private Silicon Valley sex assault list containing the names of more than 100 alleged sexual predators is reportedly circulating among women and tech workers, according to a September 2026 report by the New York Post. The newspaper said the list includes allegations ranging from drugging and sexual assault to rape and names “prominent investors and businessmen.”

The list is not publicly available, and its existence and contents have not been independently verified in full. That distinction is important: the allegations reportedly contained in a private document should not be treated as established findings of misconduct.

Still, the report has drawn attention because it comes just days after a New York Times investigation examined sexual-abuse allegations and police records connected to Silicon Valley’s increasingly prominent “hacker houses,” private residences where young founders, engineers, and other technology workers live, work, and socialize.

Together, the reports raise questions about what happens when housing, social networks, professional opportunities, and venture capital connections overlap in a tightly connected technology community.

What is the Silicon Valley sex assault list?

According to the New York Post, the private spreadsheet contains more than 100 names and is circulated through an informal network of women who warn one another about people they consider dangerous.

Sources told the newspaper that the allegations associated with the names include:

• Sexual assault
• Rape
• Alleged drugging
• Unwanted sexual contact
• Other forms of sexual misconduct

One technology worker who spoke anonymously to the Post said she was surprised to recognize “famous investors” and businessmen on the list. Another woman said she learned about the network only after asking other women about an abusive experience of her own.

The Post reported that the network has been described by sources as a “whisper network” containing hundreds of cases.

However, there is a critical limitation. Because the spreadsheet is private, journalists and the public cannot independently examine all of its entries, assess the evidence behind individual allegations, or determine whether every person named is accused accurately.

That makes the list different from a police database, court record, or adjudicated finding.

Why are women reportedly using a private network?

The explanation offered by sources to the Post is closely tied to the unusual concentration of professional power in Silicon Valley.

For young founders and technology workers, investors can provide far more than money. They can offer introductions, employment opportunities, customers, board positions, and access to influential professional networks.

Several women told the Post that they feared reporting alleged misconduct could have professional consequences.

One source said she worried that pursuing a case and losing could result in her being “blacklisted” by investors. The concern, as described by the sources, is that reporting an influential person could potentially damage relationships with other people in the same professional circle.

That fear is difficult to independently quantify. It is nevertheless significant because it helps explain why an informal warning system could emerge alongside, rather than instead of, formal reporting mechanisms.

A private network can also protect the identities of people making allegations. But it has an obvious limitation: without independent investigation, allegations passed privately from person to person can be difficult to verify.

That creates a complicated trade-off between protecting alleged victims and ensuring that accusations are evaluated fairly.

How do Silicon Valley’s hacker houses fit into the story?

The discussion of the alleged list comes amid new scrutiny of “hacker houses,” a term commonly used for residences where technology entrepreneurs, engineers and founders live together and host events.

Some of these houses have become networking hubs. Residents can meet potential co-founders, investors, and employers simply by sharing a home or attending its parties.

That environment can create professional opportunities. It can also blur boundaries between someone’s personal and professional life.

The New York Times reported that it reviewed police records, court documents, and interviews with more than 20 people in the artificial-intelligence industry while investigating several technology group houses.

At AGI House, a mansion in Hillsborough, California, police logged 37 incidents since 2022, according to the Times. At least 17 involved complaints about large parties and events. Other reports included allegations involving sexual conduct and welfare checks.

The number of police incidents should not be interpreted as 37 criminal offenses or 37 sexual-assault cases. The Times reported that many of the incidents concerned parties, noise, and other issues.

That distinction matters when describing the scale of the problem.

What happened at Genesis?

One case highlighted by both the Post and Times involves Yehong Zhu, founder of the AI startup Zette.

Zhu filed a police report in December 2021 accusing a former member of the San Francisco hacker house Genesis of rape and assault, according to a copy of the report reviewed by the Times. Her case remains under investigation, according to the newspaper.

Zhu has said she was discouraged by people connected to the house from going to police. She told the Post that she sought help locating the man she accused after he left but that some people who knew him did not assist her.

A lawyer for Genesis co-founder Jeremy Nixon told the Post that Nixon was unaware of the specific situation described to him and supported cooperation with law enforcement.

These accounts illustrate why allegations involving private communities can become complicated: the people involved may simultaneously be friends, roommates, investors, founders, or business partners.

What did the New York Times find at AGI House?

The Times’ investigation provides independently reported context for the broader discussion about hacker houses.

AGI House developed from earlier technology group homes established by Jeremy Nixon, including Genesis and NeoGenesis. The property later became associated with the AI boom and hosted technology events and hackathons.

The Times reported that police records showed 37 incidents at the Hillsborough property since 2022. Among the incidents was a report from a woman who said a male resident repeatedly pressured her to have sex. She escaped by climbing over a gate, according to the police report cited by the Times.

The investigation also described large parties, drug use, and conflicts among residents and guests.

Importantly, the existence of police reports does not itself establish that every allegation was substantiated. Police records document calls, complaints, and investigations; they are not equivalent to criminal convictions.

Why does the overlap between networking and social life matter?

The central issue is not simply that young technology workers are living together.

It is that the same physical and social space can connect several kinds of power.

A person at a hacker house might simultaneously be:

• A roommate or guest
• A founder or employee
• A potential investor
• A business partner
• A friend or romantic acquaintance
• A connection to other influential technology divs

That overlap can make it difficult for someone reporting misconduct to separate personal safety from professional consequences.

It can also make accountability more complicated when a house is privately operated and does not have the formal structures found in a conventional workplace.

A company generally has established reporting procedures, employment policies, and legal obligations. A private residence does not necessarily have the same institutional framework.

That does not mean every hacker house is unsafe or that every allegation involving one is substantiated. It does mean that the model can create circumstances in which informal community decisions carry significant consequences.

What remains unverified about the alleged list?

The biggest unanswered question is the reliability of the private spreadsheet.

The Post itself acknowledged that verifying the authenticity of the accounts is a separate issue.

Readers should therefore distinguish among three categories:

1. Reported allegations: Claims made by individuals about alleged misconduct.
2. Documented records: Police reports, court filings, contemporaneous communications or other records that can independently establish that a complaint was made.
3. Adjudicated findings: Criminal convictions, civil judgments or other formal findings following a legal process.

Those categories are not interchangeable.

A person’s appearance on an alleged private list does not establish that the person committed a crime. Conversely, the absence of a name from such a list does not establish that no misconduct occurred.

The private nature of the document also means that outsiders cannot currently assess how allegations were investigated, whether contradictory evidence was considered or whether entries have been independently corroborated.

Why this story matters beyond Silicon Valley

The reported list highlights a broader problem that can arise in any concentrated professional community: when career opportunities depend heavily on personal networks, people may hesitate to report misconduct involving someone with influence.

The answer is not simply to create another unofficial blacklist.

Formal reporting channels, independent investigations and clear policies can provide safeguards that informal networks cannot. At the same time, allegations involving sexual violence require sensitivity to privacy and the possibility of retaliation against people who come forward.

The Silicon Valley cases also show why journalism must be particularly careful with allegations involving identifiable people.

A private spreadsheet can be newsworthy without every allegation in it being true. Police records can establish that a complaint was made without proving the underlying allegation. And a high number of police calls at a property can indicate repeated problems without meaning that every call involved criminal conduct.

Those distinctions are essential to reporting the story accurately.

The key takeaway

The reported Silicon Valley sex assault list is significant primarily because it is alleged to exist at all — an informal warning system reportedly created by women who believe conventional channels do not adequately protect them.

But the list itself should not be treated as a verified roster of sexual offenders.

What can be independently documented is the larger context: technology group houses have become important social and professional gathering places, police records show repeated incidents at at least one prominent property, and women including Yehong Zhu have publicly described allegations of sexual violence connected to these communities.

The unresolved question is whether informal networks can provide meaningful protection without creating a parallel system in which serious allegations are impossible for outsiders to independently evaluate.

For readers, that distinction is the most important part of the story: an allegation is not a finding of guilt, but repeated reports and documented institutional failures can still warrant scrutiny.