They are not forced. The FBI did not show up with guns and say, "Invest in this dumb-ass startup or we shoot you."
During a recession, they decided that rather than lose some value to inflation, they wanted to risk losing all of their investment in hopes of a higher long-term return.
This is called a choice. They made it. Nobody owes them a guaranteed safe rate of return just because they're rich.
So many of these kinds of arguments end up just being semantics. Strictly speaking, they were not forced.
Realistically, an environment was purposefully created that would make the average actor move a certain way. Sure, the individual may have had the option to just eat the losses.
This is not just semantics in that people often use particular language to direct attention away from actual agency.
Returning to my original point, forest fires are about a natural phenomenon. Fire doesn't want anything and doesn't make choices.
But startup founders and venture capitalists and limited partners are all morally competent actors who get to make choices. No matter how much money is available, nobody is forced to put together a startup. Nobody is forced to invest in it regardless of its chances of success.
Language that makes their bad choices the fault of government or whomever is something that is very convenient for preserving their egos and keeping the game going. But it is not factually correct, and I am not obliged to swallow my objections to it just because some find it an uncomfortable truth.
You seem to be overly focused on a single definition of "force". Nobody (except maybe you?) is confused that the FBI might be holding a gun to VC's heads. Webster has a lot of definitions of "force", and most of them don't have anything to do with coercion in the face of violence. For example
3 : to make or cause especially through natural or logical necessity
"forced to admit my error"
8 : to induce (a particular bid or play by another player) in a card game by some conventional act, play, bid, or response
