3 ms·
Theranos believed in what they were originally taking investors over. I don't see why this is not a similar case of fraud if investors have not been informed a
by DetroitThrow 5y ago
Theranos believed in what they were originally taking investors over.
I don't see why this is not a similar case of fraud if investors have not been informed about current expectations of their original promise.
- chrisco255 5y agoThe difference with Theranos is they were promising people tangible medical results. Clearly, if a metaverse startup convinces a bunch of VCs to back them and the venture fails, that risk was known from the beginning.
- ska 5y agoI don't think the point was what the tangible result would be, or risk of failure. Everyone putting money into an early venture knows that there is a good chance they just kissed it goodbye. The problem is when said venture later lies about progress, or otherwise obfuscates, especially to get more money. That's certainly what Theranos did, and I think what GP was suggesting happened here.
- qzw 5y agoThey also collected $64K from a Kickstarter while boasting about having "secured the majority of our funding from some of the best investors in Silicon Valley." So arguably they did promise some tangible results to some non-professional investors/potential players. Of course, by now everyone should know that Caveat Backer is the unofficial motto of Kickstarter.
- orzig 5y agoMoreover, they were making claims about the then-present, not just the clearly unforeseeable future
- baby 5y agoTheranos was lying and faking demos. Also the founder had little knowledge in the field.