At risk of wading into a toxic swamp, I would interpret this more as "the hype around ambitious female founders makes it easier for a scam run by a woman to get

At risk of wading into a toxic swamp, I would interpret this more as "the hype around ambitious female founders makes it easier for a scam run by a woman to get media attention, prominent board members, and funding than an equivalent man" Not that women are any more likely to run a scam than men -- they just have had an easier time of it over the past 10 years. It's really interesting to look back at Elizabeth Holmes's media profile around 2014-2015. She was hyped as the next Steve Jobs, and not in a mocking way. The media, the tech industry, the country at large wanted a female founder to be the next tech titan, so they chose one. Unfortunately, it turned out to be vaporware. So I don't think there's much to read into here, other than selection bias from investors and the media attention. Lots of men run ambitious but failed startups or scams, but over the past decade, the women have had a better time getting attention. That will probably change as successful female founders becomes commonplace, not exceptional.