5 ms·

Holmes is all they have: a PR-friendly cargo-cult attempted zuckalike

by plonh 11y ago

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
Sorry, but I don't buy that. I don't care who you are, nobody could straight up dupe their way into $88M. They must have something that works at some scale - but probably not the scale they claim. Like most unicorns that don't have valuation based on their revenue multiple.
- 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
  > I don't care who you are, nobody could straight up dupe their way into $88M. Bernie Madoff duped his way into tens of billions of dollars. His ponzi scheme worked pretty well at scale. Until it didn't. Never underestimate what the two most powerful emotions, fear and greed, can lead even the most intelligent and sophisticated individuals to invest in. At it relates to any specific company, assuming that there's no funny business solely on the basis that significant amounts have been invested is the product of flawed reasoning. Investors in the U.S. are defrauded to the tune of tens of dollars every year. Annual fraud related to penny stocks alone amounts to a billion-plus dollars[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_fraud#Pervasiveness_of_securities_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_fraud#Pervasiveness...
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    Again, that's not the whole story. Madoff had an incredibly successful and well run OTC trading platform that was a backbone for NASDAQ. His fraud was done outside of the primary business lines - so it wasn't just straight up selling just himself, he had an auditable track record.
    - 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
      Thank you. You have refuted your own argument ("nobody could straight up dupe their way..."). Folks like Madoff are successful because they take advantage of fear and greed. An "auditable track record" helps but is not required. See http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/10/follieri200810 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/10/follieri200810 for an example.
      - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
        That's not a straight up dupe - like the OP claimed about Holmes: Holmes is all they have: a PR-friendly cargo-cult attempted zuckalike She has no record.
        7Figures2Commas 11y ago
        People are straight-up duped all the time. Just read the Vanity Fair link I posted. You can find countless other stories like this. Again, investors in the U.S. are defrauded to the tune of tens of billions of dollars every year. Do you honestly believe that all the perps have stellar track records? As it relates to Holmes and Theranos, it should first be noted that nobody really knows what's happening, so I don't think anybody can legitimately claim that Theranos is a scam at this point. But to say that Holmes has "no record" is silly. One might have good reason to question how meaningful her accomplishments are and her qualifications to run a business like Theranos, but she comes from a politically-connected family, attended an elite prep school and was a President's Scholar at Stanford. Before she ever reached the age of 20 she had access to, and could command the attention of, powerful and influential people most of us will realistically never be able to call on.
- outside1234 11y ago
  Have we already forgotten the $41M VCs put into Color, which literally had nothing going for it but personality?
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    I feel like Color gets shit on unnecessarily because they raised a lot of money. The founders had an incredible track record and they actually had a product that a lot of people used 1MM downloads at one point. I agree that they got too much money for their traction, but it's all Sunday morning quarterbacking. Same with Clinkle, at first blush it seems like vaporware, but according to some of the insiders they had some hardcore tech that they could never get legally cleared to use. I think the key thing though is that these companies have something real, but that they can't execute on it at scale.
    - 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
      > Same with Clinkle, at first blush it seems like vaporware, but according to some of the insiders they had some hardcore tech that they could never get legally cleared to use. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
- SandB0x 11y ago
  > I don't care who you are, nobody could straight up dupe their way into $88M. Maybe the investors thought the same in earlier rounds?
- ryandrake 11y ago
  Never underestimate the powerful combination of pedigree and self-promotion. Rich/important, well-connected family, the right prep school, Ivy League/Stanford education, government industry contacts, etc. This class of people are essentially created in a lab for the sole purpose of succeeding. Combine that with relentless self-promotion and grooming of their own personal brand/celebrity-- they're essentially money-attracting magnets.
- lordnacho 11y ago
  Reminds me of this story: http://www.fastcompany.com/3028159/a-broken-place-better-place http://www.fastcompany.com/3028159/a-broken-place-better-pla...

Holmes is all they have: a PR-friendly cargo-cult attempted zuckalike

by plonh 11y ago

Holmes is all they have: a PR-friendly cargo-cult attempted zuckalike

Sorry, but I don't buy that. I don't care who you are, nobody could straight up dupe their way into $88M. They must have something that works at some scale - but probably not the scale they claim. Like most unicorns that don't have valuation based on their revenue multiple.

7Figures2Commas 11y ago
> I don't care who you are, nobody could straight up dupe their way into $88M. Bernie Madoff duped his way into tens of billions of dollars. His ponzi scheme worked pretty well at scale. Until it didn't. Never underestimate what the two most powerful emotions, fear and greed, can lead even the most intelligent and sophisticated individuals to invest in. At it relates to any specific company, assuming that there's no funny business solely on the basis that significant amounts have been invested is the product of flawed reasoning. Investors in the U.S. are defrauded to the tune of tens of dollars every year. Annual fraud related to penny stocks alone amounts to a billion-plus dollars[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_fraud#Pervasiveness_of_securities_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_fraud#Pervasiveness...
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  Again, that's not the whole story. Madoff had an incredibly successful and well run OTC trading platform that was a backbone for NASDAQ. His fraud was done outside of the primary business lines - so it wasn't just straight up selling just himself, he had an auditable track record.
  - 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
    Thank you. You have refuted your own argument ("nobody could straight up dupe their way..."). Folks like Madoff are successful because they take advantage of fear and greed. An "auditable track record" helps but is not required. See http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/10/follieri200810 http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/10/follieri200810 for an example.
    - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
      That's not a straight up dupe - like the OP claimed about Holmes: Holmes is all they have: a PR-friendly cargo-cult attempted zuckalike She has no record.
      - 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
        People are straight-up duped all the time. Just read the Vanity Fair link I posted. You can find countless other stories like this. Again, investors in the U.S. are defrauded to the tune of tens of billions of dollars every year. Do you honestly believe that all the perps have stellar track records? As it relates to Holmes and Theranos, it should first be noted that nobody really knows what's happening, so I don't think anybody can legitimately claim that Theranos is a scam at this point. But to say that Holmes has "no record" is silly. One might have good reason to question how meaningful her accomplishments are and her qualifications to run a business like Theranos, but she comes from a politically-connected family, attended an elite prep school and was a President's Scholar at Stanford. Before she ever reached the age of 20 she had access to, and could command the attention of, powerful and influential people most of us will realistically never be able to call on.
outside1234 11y ago
Have we already forgotten the $41M VCs put into Color, which literally had nothing going for it but personality?
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  I feel like Color gets shit on unnecessarily because they raised a lot of money. The founders had an incredible track record and they actually had a product that a lot of people used 1MM downloads at one point. I agree that they got too much money for their traction, but it's all Sunday morning quarterbacking. Same with Clinkle, at first blush it seems like vaporware, but according to some of the insiders they had some hardcore tech that they could never get legally cleared to use. I think the key thing though is that these companies have something real, but that they can't execute on it at scale.
  - 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
    > Same with Clinkle, at first blush it seems like vaporware, but according to some of the insiders they had some hardcore tech that they could never get legally cleared to use. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
SandB0x 11y ago
> I don't care who you are, nobody could straight up dupe their way into $88M. Maybe the investors thought the same in earlier rounds?
ryandrake 11y ago
Never underestimate the powerful combination of pedigree and self-promotion. Rich/important, well-connected family, the right prep school, Ivy League/Stanford education, government industry contacts, etc. This class of people are essentially created in a lab for the sole purpose of succeeding. Combine that with relentless self-promotion and grooming of their own personal brand/celebrity-- they're essentially money-attracting magnets.
lordnacho 11y ago
Reminds me of this story: http://www.fastcompany.com/3028159/a-broken-place-better-place http://www.fastcompany.com/3028159/a-broken-place-better-pla...