3 ms·

The headline of the website is "helping founder craft successful VC pitches". Emotions and controversies aside, Theranos did raise capital. No, I don't think i

The headline of the website is "helping founder craft successful VC pitches". Emotions and controversies aside, Theranos did raise capital. No, I don't think it's nice to do what they've done (or smart, for that matter). But you want to see both ends of a spectrum, otherwise we'll fall prey to the survivorship bias. Hence, we've put up the "failed" category and didn't really want to give Theranos a category in itself called "fraud". Again, controversy aside, I think there are lessons to be learned from them. People can misinterpret what I'm saying here and say I'm pushing them to commit fraud, but from my end it's more of a "This is how you should not do it" We need to know both ends of an interval

skrebbel 7y ago
The argument here seems to be "to raise capital, tell investors whatever they want to hear, irrespective of how true it is. Pass DD by covering up your lies, then cover up the coverups". This is supposed to be a curated list of VC pitches. I honestly don't understand how Theranos, a company that raised and grew solely by spreading lies and then covering them up, can end up in a list like that, except if the authors of said list think that this is a good way to raise money. I don't understand how it is that everybody agrees that stealing a painting from a museum is bad, but when you steal billions (!) from investors then suddenly it's "inspiration". EDIT: I hadn't yet realized you're the author. > but from my end it's more of a "This is how you should not do it" This is a good point, and with that I think it makes more sense. But IMO it needs a much bigger "fraud alert! don't do this, these people are evil" note :-)