I think the biggest win here is the marketing for Vice after putting together this $25M fund. This is totally on-brand for them, regardless of how business-viab

I think the biggest win here is the marketing for Vice after putting together this $25M fund. This is totally on-brand for them, regardless of how business-viable these investments are. Plus, it’s not Vice’s own money they are playing with (which is good for them given their profitability struggles as a parent company). My inclination is that VCs don’t particularly not-invest in successful “vice-driven companies” due to their moral compass, but rather due to the financial friction and PR risk-reward involved in doing so. I feel like the article understates the point that, given the nature of vices, if the business turns out to be doing substantial harm and a media shitstorm hits, the VCs will absolutely be dragged into the mix and publicly shamed for contributing to the problem. When Juul was going through it’s recent implosion all the cigarette giants who were investors got name-dropped. When WeWork was in the news, SoftBank’s name was being dragged right next to it. And the media was sure to tie Uber articles to Saudi money. Sure, some investments are bound to not work out for VC firms, but nobody wants to trash their firm’s legacy and reputation over blowback from the fickle beast that is public opinion on the internet and word of mouth. There is still value in these vice industries and proper federal regulations still need to be figured out for things like Cannabis companies to operate like ‘real’ businesses. Not all “vice” companies are equal and I think it will still take time to figure out to what level different types are socially acceptable and what restrictions to put in place to keep the good/bad balance in check.