5 ms·

Anna Delvey sells a quintessentially rich non-technical New York person's vaporware--a museum--and I can sympathize with the marks. What's crazy is that if you

Anna Delvey sells a quintessentially rich non-technical New York person's vaporware--a museum--and I can sympathize with the marks. What's crazy is that if you make quintessentially rich STEM person vaporware--like Elizabeth Holmes's "third grade chemistry" blood testing kit--you can sort of walk away unharmed? Tom Draper will go on record saying he'd invest in Holmes, a known scammer, again. Why?

md224 8y ago
It's interesting that you mention Holmes, because I think there's an alternate interpretation of Anna Delvey (and Holmes) that answers your question: they didn't see themselves as scammers, but rather as geniuses, and they were both so convinced of their genius that they decided "fake it until you make it" was therefore moral even if it had to be taken to the extreme. After all, if you don't "make it", how will you be able to change the world? Draper's behavior makes sense if he still sees Holmes as Holmes sees herself, as a visionary who had to make some ethical concessions for the sake of a dream. I think both of them still believe that the machines would have worked eventually, and they had to keep the hype wave going or else everything would collapse. I bet both of them could imagine a universe where the machines did end up working and their indiscretions were relegated to footnotes in gossipy Tell-Alls written 20 years from now. (Isn't there some story about Bill Gates promising software he didn't yet possess in order to close a key deal? Imagine if that didn't work out as well as it did...) Similarly, while the article paints Delvey as a scammer who just won't admit to it, I think it's possible that Delvey never saw her actions as "scamming"... Her attitude was probably a mix of egomania and extreme narcissism, something like: "banks have so much money anyway, and I was going to use it better than anyone else could." In fact, she straight-up says this at the end of the piece: > “Money, like, there’s an unlimited amount of capital in the world, you know?” Anna said to me at one point. “But there’s limited amounts of people who are talented.” I could be misreading this, but based on the previous paragraph, it seems like the author is implying that Delvey is talking about how she's so talented at deceiving people. But I don't think that's what Delvey means at all. I think she sincerely believes she's deeply and profoundly talented in a positive sense, and therefore money and power should be hers (because in a just universe, money & power accrue to the talented), and if she has to cut some corners to acquire this money and power that is rightfully hers, so be it. Same mindset as Holmes. "Fake it until you make it" can be useful in certain circumstances, but this ideology is dangerous in the hands of delusional people who are convinced that they're brilliant.
- ufmace 8y ago
  I've posted elsewhere wondering along those same lines. With these types of people, it isn't so much that they're straight up crooks in the way that we would think, but that they seem to have a worldview where they're entitled to greatness and no physical laws can prevent them from doing something if only they want it enough. When you take this worldview in a high dose, and combine it with genuine intelligence, skill, and a bit of luck, then you get Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, etc. and all they've accomplished. Take out the intelligence and skill, and you get Anna Delvey and Holmes. I can even kind of see that, from a VC's perspective, this trait may be even more important to them than the intelligence and skill. Their business is built around investing in 20 crazy-ambitious ideas with the expectation that 19 will fail, but the other one will go big enough to pay off the loss of the other 19 and still provide huge gains. Better then to stick with the delusionally optimistic rather than reasonable and sane business plans that will probably make decent money but will never grow 1000x.
  - adrianratnapala 8y ago
    > Take out the intelligence and skill, and you get Anna Delvey and Holmes. You still need to add mendacity. If Musk, Gates etc. had been less lucky, would they have turned to lie to try and manufacture luck? They probably did a little bit -- would they do it at a criminal level? Some might have; it's a thing that some people do. But it is unfair on them to assume that they would have.
- netsharc 8y ago
  The Bill Gates software story makes me think of the first iPhone demo: they were ready in case the device in Steve Jobs' hands crashed. Although I suppose there's a difference between unfinished software and impossible hardware (what Theranos was promising).
ajross 8y ago
Holmes is under indictment in federal court on charges that would produce a 20 year sentence... I think if you want to play the "what's more interesting" game, it isn't that Theranos was particularly notable. Scams happen all the time, and at the end of the day the crime was to have taken $700M in investments based on a lie. I mean, that's, like, really bad. But be real: we're hardly talking Enron or Madoff here. But some folks just Won't Let Theranos Go. It comes up again and again and again as some kind of existential moral statement instead of the one-every-few-years business scandal that it actually is. And as far as I can tell, the only reason for this is that some of the early investors (that's right, the victims of the crime) were Democrats.
- doctorpangloss 8y ago
  Ah yes, those Democrat Theranos board members and investors, George Schultz and Henry Kissinger! They contributed their significant liberal viewpoints to the well-known Democrat partisan politicians Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan! In seriousness, I know in some narrow and uninteresting sense you regard your point of view as accurate. But surely the fact that so many supposedly smart people were duped is what made these stories newsworthy.
- ben_jones 8y ago
  Honestly I think its more because Theranos pierced the Silicon Valley Charade in a way people just couldn't ignore. * You mean every AI/Hardware/Cloud start-up isn't a magic factory of philanthropy/social justice/innovation?? * You mean investors/rich-people make MISTAKES?? But they PAY people to do due-diligence right? * You mean coming from a wealthy, well-connected, family, gives you an egregious head start in the diverse and democratizing tech world?? * You mean a Woman can lie, cheat, and steal, just like a Man?
- randycupertino 8y ago
  > But some folks just Won't Let Theranos Go. It comes up again and again and again as some kind of existential moral statement instead of the one-every-few-years business scandal that it actually is. And as far as I can tell, the only reason for this is that some of the early investors (that's right, the victims of the crime) were Democrats. What? No... it's because we'd never seen the Silicon Valley Startup Hype Machine ramped up to it's fully glory before like Theranos. Also svelte young blueeyed blondes are catnip to media, combine that with "youngest self made female billionaire" and it's mandatory reporting and guaranteed spotlight in the public eye... throwing the fact that it was all a scam and renewed interest and modern popularity with TrueCrime genre and modern scammers like Anna Delvey and Fyre Festival and .... kaboom, here we are. Didn't hurt that Bad Blood was also excellently written and well-researched. All in all an excellent story.
boron1006 8y ago
I just finished reading the book "The Confidence Game", and the stories of Delvey or Holmes would fit right into that book. It's easy to look from the outside in and question how these people could fall for these types of frauds, but I think most people are more susceptible to them than they realize. Really, what cons are about is selling people a version of the future that they want. With Delvey, her associates were probably motivated to believe her because she spent money freely, and she seemed to belong to a "higher" social order. What Holmes was selling wasn't blood testing kits, she was selling the idea that healthcare could be "disrupted" and progress the same way that software could. I'm not exactly sure who Tom Draper is or what he said, but for wealthy older people, who may have significant financial stakes in Theranos, you can see why this would be an attractive reality. In contrast, the alternate reality -- that you got suckered in by a fraudster and the progression of healthcare will be as slow and bureaucratic as ever (which means the quality of your life over the next 30 years will slowly, then quickly, decline probably past the point where you will logically want to live anymore)-- seems far less appealing. It reminds me of someone who I worked with who was a Libertarian. He used to go around trying to "convert" people, and the only things he would ask was "Wouldn't you like to pay less money in taxes? If you didn't have to pay taxes what would you buy? Can you imagine how much money you would make if you didn't have to pay taxes?". He managed to convince like 90% of people that way.

md224 8y ago

It's interesting that you mention Holmes, because I think there's an alternate interpretation of Anna Delvey (and Holmes) that answers your question: they didn't see themselves as scammers, but rather as geniuses, and they were both so convinced of their genius that they decided "fake it until you make it" was therefore moral even if it had to be taken to the extreme. After all, if you don't "make it", how will you be able to change the world? Draper's behavior makes sense if he still sees Holmes as Holmes sees herself, as a visionary who had to make some ethical concessions for the sake of a dream. I think both of them still believe that the machines would have worked eventually, and they had to keep the hype wave going or else everything would collapse. I bet both of them could imagine a universe where the machines did end up working and their indiscretions were relegated to footnotes in gossipy Tell-Alls written 20 years from now. (Isn't there some story about Bill Gates promising software he didn't yet possess in order to close a key deal? Imagine if that didn't work out as well as it did...) Similarly, while the article paints Delvey as a scammer who just won't admit to it, I think it's possible that Delvey never saw her actions as "scamming"... Her attitude was probably a mix of egomania and extreme narcissism, something like: "banks have so much money anyway, and I was going to use it better than anyone else could." In fact, she straight-up says this at the end of the piece: > “Money, like, there’s an unlimited amount of capital in the world, you know?” Anna said to me at one point. “But there’s limited amounts of people who are talented.” I could be misreading this, but based on the previous paragraph, it seems like the author is implying that Delvey is talking about how she's so talented at deceiving people. But I don't think that's what Delvey means at all. I think she sincerely believes she's deeply and profoundly talented in a positive sense, and therefore money and power should be hers (because in a just universe, money & power accrue to the talented), and if she has to cut some corners to acquire this money and power that is rightfully hers, so be it. Same mindset as Holmes. "Fake it until you make it" can be useful in certain circumstances, but this ideology is dangerous in the hands of delusional people who are convinced that they're brilliant.

ufmace 8y ago
I've posted elsewhere wondering along those same lines. With these types of people, it isn't so much that they're straight up crooks in the way that we would think, but that they seem to have a worldview where they're entitled to greatness and no physical laws can prevent them from doing something if only they want it enough. When you take this worldview in a high dose, and combine it with genuine intelligence, skill, and a bit of luck, then you get Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, etc. and all they've accomplished. Take out the intelligence and skill, and you get Anna Delvey and Holmes. I can even kind of see that, from a VC's perspective, this trait may be even more important to them than the intelligence and skill. Their business is built around investing in 20 crazy-ambitious ideas with the expectation that 19 will fail, but the other one will go big enough to pay off the loss of the other 19 and still provide huge gains. Better then to stick with the delusionally optimistic rather than reasonable and sane business plans that will probably make decent money but will never grow 1000x.
- adrianratnapala 8y ago
  > Take out the intelligence and skill, and you get Anna Delvey and Holmes. You still need to add mendacity. If Musk, Gates etc. had been less lucky, would they have turned to lie to try and manufacture luck? They probably did a little bit -- would they do it at a criminal level? Some might have; it's a thing that some people do. But it is unfair on them to assume that they would have.
netsharc 8y ago
The Bill Gates software story makes me think of the first iPhone demo: they were ready in case the device in Steve Jobs' hands crashed. Although I suppose there's a difference between unfinished software and impossible hardware (what Theranos was promising).

ajross 8y ago

Holmes is under indictment in federal court on charges that would produce a 20 year sentence... I think if you want to play the "what's more interesting" game, it isn't that Theranos was particularly notable. Scams happen all the time, and at the end of the day the crime was to have taken $700M in investments based on a lie. I mean, that's, like, really bad. But be real: we're hardly talking Enron or Madoff here. But some folks just Won't Let Theranos Go. It comes up again and again and again as some kind of existential moral statement instead of the one-every-few-years business scandal that it actually is. And as far as I can tell, the only reason for this is that some of the early investors (that's right, the victims of the crime) were Democrats.

doctorpangloss 8y ago
Ah yes, those Democrat Theranos board members and investors, George Schultz and Henry Kissinger! They contributed their significant liberal viewpoints to the well-known Democrat partisan politicians Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan! In seriousness, I know in some narrow and uninteresting sense you regard your point of view as accurate. But surely the fact that so many supposedly smart people were duped is what made these stories newsworthy.
ben_jones 8y ago
Honestly I think its more because Theranos pierced the Silicon Valley Charade in a way people just couldn't ignore. * You mean every AI/Hardware/Cloud start-up isn't a magic factory of philanthropy/social justice/innovation?? * You mean investors/rich-people make MISTAKES?? But they PAY people to do due-diligence right? * You mean coming from a wealthy, well-connected, family, gives you an egregious head start in the diverse and democratizing tech world?? * You mean a Woman can lie, cheat, and steal, just like a Man?
randycupertino 8y ago
> But some folks just Won't Let Theranos Go. It comes up again and again and again as some kind of existential moral statement instead of the one-every-few-years business scandal that it actually is. And as far as I can tell, the only reason for this is that some of the early investors (that's right, the victims of the crime) were Democrats. What? No... it's because we'd never seen the Silicon Valley Startup Hype Machine ramped up to it's fully glory before like Theranos. Also svelte young blueeyed blondes are catnip to media, combine that with "youngest self made female billionaire" and it's mandatory reporting and guaranteed spotlight in the public eye... throwing the fact that it was all a scam and renewed interest and modern popularity with TrueCrime genre and modern scammers like Anna Delvey and Fyre Festival and .... kaboom, here we are. Didn't hurt that Bad Blood was also excellently written and well-researched. All in all an excellent story.

boron1006 8y ago

I just finished reading the book "The Confidence Game", and the stories of Delvey or Holmes would fit right into that book. It's easy to look from the outside in and question how these people could fall for these types of frauds, but I think most people are more susceptible to them than they realize. Really, what cons are about is selling people a version of the future that they want. With Delvey, her associates were probably motivated to believe her because she spent money freely, and she seemed to belong to a "higher" social order. What Holmes was selling wasn't blood testing kits, she was selling the idea that healthcare could be "disrupted" and progress the same way that software could. I'm not exactly sure who Tom Draper is or what he said, but for wealthy older people, who may have significant financial stakes in Theranos, you can see why this would be an attractive reality. In contrast, the alternate reality -- that you got suckered in by a fraudster and the progression of healthcare will be as slow and bureaucratic as ever (which means the quality of your life over the next 30 years will slowly, then quickly, decline probably past the point where you will logically want to live anymore)-- seems far less appealing. It reminds me of someone who I worked with who was a Libertarian. He used to go around trying to "convert" people, and the only things he would ask was "Wouldn't you like to pay less money in taxes? If you didn't have to pay taxes what would you buy? Can you imagine how much money you would make if you didn't have to pay taxes?". He managed to convince like 90% of people that way.