I have no idea whether or not you're right about Mark / FB, but even if you are correct, I think the issue raised by the author still stands. Let's say Faceboo

I have no idea whether or not you're right about Mark / FB, but even if you are correct, I think the issue raised by the author still stands. Let's say Facebook owes all its success to getting a ton of money from investors - any other social networking company would have achieved the same level of success with the same amount of money. The question still remains - why did Boston VCs not invest in Facebook like SV investors did? Or some other similar company (which according to your theory, would have given them the same outcome as what SV investors in FB got)? Clearly they are worse off for not having done so. Not claiming that Boston VCs should have been expected to invest in FB - just saying that the underlying issue raised by the article stands regardless of why you think Facebook is successful.