She had a proof of concept that turned out didn't scale. If you think it's "useless" to discuss whether and how it's possible for such a CEO to pivot we have n

She had a proof of concept that turned out didn't scale. If you think it's "useless" to discuss whether and how it's possible for such a CEO to pivot we have nothing further to discuss. I will say that I expect any and every world-changing CEO to be at risk of being in such a position now and in the future, and that the development of a game plan by the startup community for when (not if) this happens again is the difference between billions of dollars of value and the statement "unfortunately I have to say no to changing the world because I only have a working proof of concept. Personally I do not want to run even a 1% risk of ending up in the position that Perry ended up in - and in my conservative opinion I have a 20-90% chance of that. Oh well - I'll put this proof of concept aside and go do something else. " Well, okay. But I hope it's blindingly obvious that we all lose. . That pre-CEO and the world. EDIT: Whoever is downvoting me doesn't get it. She had a proof of concept. The proof didn't scale. She raised money - millions - anyway. To me this is all fine. The question is whether she HAD to stick with this non-working concept, or whether she could have pivoted, when she had all that money in the bank and learned that the concept does not work/scale. You guys just don't get the question.