5 ms·

>For the 1000th time, a total of 0 (zero) VCs that most people would associate with "silicon valley" invested in Theranos Well, Tim Draper is a VC that people

by jasode 5y ago

>For the 1000th time, a total of 0 (zero) VCs that most people would associate with "silicon valley" invested in Theranos Well, Tim Draper is a VC that people would associate with "Silicon Valley". (portfolio: https://www.dfj.com/ https://www.dfj.com/) The first $500k seed came from DFJ.[1] But somewhat to your point, Elizabeth Holmes did not get his backing via the typical "VC due diligence" channel. Instead, she was childhood friends with Draper's daughter. Apparently, her charm completely bypassed his VC radar for detecting bullshit. [1] https://news.crunchbase.com/news/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-trial-investors-board/#:~:text=other%20business%20ties.-,Theranos'%20investors,June%202004%2C%20according%20to%20Crunchbase https://news.crunchbase.com/news/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-t....

throwawayswede 5y ago
/s/bypassed/overloaded
- HPsquared 5y ago
  Overloading the opponent's radar with false signals is a good jamming method, after all.
FiberBundle 5y ago
Draper actually continues to back her [1], recently (2019 tbf, but after the release of the Carreyrou book) claiming that Theranos has opened the door for other companies to make progress in the blood test area. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vqliQZv1ehA&t=410s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vqliQZv1ehA&t=410s
- Waterluvian 5y ago
  Is that backing her or is that licking his own embarrassing wounds?
  - FiberBundle 5y ago
    I didn't find the right video earlier. This was actually what I was looking for and since he said in the more recent video that he hasn't changed his mind on this, he probably still feels that Holmes is in some way a victim in all of this: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/05/10/vc-draper-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-was-bullied-into-submission.html https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/05/10/vc-draper-theranos-fou...
    - easytiger 5y ago
      I hadn't seen that before. Draper completely out of line there.
    - Waterluvian 5y ago
      Just like how George Shultz comes off in the book, it feels like Draper is still brainwashed and living in denial.
- tomhoward 5y ago
  In a world where the most founder-friendly investors get the best deals, what makes more sense for Tim Draper: throwing Holmes, a family friend, under a bus, or signaling to other founders and friends that he’ll stick by them to the bitter end?
  - FiberBundle 5y ago
    Not supporting fraud seems like a reasonable option to me.
    - throwawayswede 5y ago
      At least not defending it. You can find a million and one ways to justify being evil.
    - tomhoward 5y ago
      It's a super-easy thing to say on a message board where none of us have any skin in the game. Can you point to the statement where he supported fraud or asserted that she was innocent of any crime? If you need me to I can point you to a statement where he said he wouldn't back her as a CEO again. You know it is possible to signal support to a friend and colleague when they're at rock bottom and with the entire world piling onto them, without endorsing the worst of their actions, right?
      - rrss 5y ago
        Draper has repeatedly said that he doesn’t think Holmes did anything wrong. He thinks that her downfall is because of a “witch hunt,” that she is a “great icon” “bullied into submission” by a corrupt FDA and big healthcare, and has said that he is “thrilled” with what she did at theranos.
        tomhoward 5y ago
        The last time I can find him saying anything about her fraud allegations was in May 2018, saying she's "innocent until proven guilty", which is a simple assertion of a fundamental legal principle, and a way of showing some humanity to a friend without defending or denying any crimes that may later be found to have been committed. The last time I can find him saying anything publicly about her, he said he wouldn't back her as CEO again - though he would back her as "chief science officer", before quickly changing the subject [2]. Again, he's clearly trying to show her some personal support as a friend and colleague when nobody else in the world will do that, whilst very clearly stopping short of endorsing or denying any criminal behaviour. What can you find that's more damning than this? And why is it so important to you that Tim Draper should have publicly trashed her? Is it not enough that basically every other media and investment figure in the world was trashing her? Do you not have anyone for whom you would publicly signal support, if they were at rock bottom and the rest of the world was piling onto them, even if you know they may have done the wrong thing? [1] https://cheddar.com/media/tim-draper-elizabeth-holmes-is-innocent-until-proven-guilty https://cheddar.com/media/tim-draper-elizabeth-holmes-is-inn... [2] https://theoutline.com/post/7157/one-of-theranos-first-investors-has-learned-approximately-nothing-from-its-implosion https://theoutline.com/post/7157/one-of-theranos-first-inves...
relaunched 5y ago
I'd argue that Tim Draper / DFJ going in early for $500k, and not following on, is a really strong signal.
kerblang 5y ago
Interesting... That crunchbase article directly links to 3 other VC/private equity firms that invested heavily: ATA Ventures, Partner Fund Mgmt, Fortress Investment Group. Usually I only hear about George Shultz, Henry Kissinger (and I was thinking the wal-mart family, but they're not listed). At any rate it's either close the "loophole" or accept the fact that proving intent to defraud is much harder than proving stupid. But at least we get to call them stupid.

by jasode 5y ago

throwawayswede 5y ago

/s/bypassed/overloaded

HPsquared 5y ago
Overloading the opponent's radar with false signals is a good jamming method, after all.

FiberBundle 5y ago

Draper actually continues to back her [1], recently (2019 tbf, but after the release of the Carreyrou book) claiming that Theranos has opened the door for other companies to make progress in the blood test area. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vqliQZv1ehA&t=410s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vqliQZv1ehA&t=410s

Waterluvian 5y ago
Is that backing her or is that licking his own embarrassing wounds?
- FiberBundle 5y ago
  I didn't find the right video earlier. This was actually what I was looking for and since he said in the more recent video that he hasn't changed his mind on this, he probably still feels that Holmes is in some way a victim in all of this: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/05/10/vc-draper-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-was-bullied-into-submission.html https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/05/10/vc-draper-theranos-fou...
  - easytiger 5y ago
    I hadn't seen that before. Draper completely out of line there.
  - Waterluvian 5y ago
    Just like how George Shultz comes off in the book, it feels like Draper is still brainwashed and living in denial.
tomhoward 5y ago
In a world where the most founder-friendly investors get the best deals, what makes more sense for Tim Draper: throwing Holmes, a family friend, under a bus, or signaling to other founders and friends that he’ll stick by them to the bitter end?
- FiberBundle 5y ago
  Not supporting fraud seems like a reasonable option to me.
  - throwawayswede 5y ago
    At least not defending it. You can find a million and one ways to justify being evil.
  - tomhoward 5y ago
    It's a super-easy thing to say on a message board where none of us have any skin in the game. Can you point to the statement where he supported fraud or asserted that she was innocent of any crime? If you need me to I can point you to a statement where he said he wouldn't back her as a CEO again. You know it is possible to signal support to a friend and colleague when they're at rock bottom and with the entire world piling onto them, without endorsing the worst of their actions, right?
    - rrss 5y ago
      Draper has repeatedly said that he doesn’t think Holmes did anything wrong. He thinks that her downfall is because of a “witch hunt,” that she is a “great icon” “bullied into submission” by a corrupt FDA and big healthcare, and has said that he is “thrilled” with what she did at theranos.
      - tomhoward 5y ago
        The last time I can find him saying anything about her fraud allegations was in May 2018, saying she's "innocent until proven guilty", which is a simple assertion of a fundamental legal principle, and a way of showing some humanity to a friend without defending or denying any crimes that may later be found to have been committed. The last time I can find him saying anything publicly about her, he said he wouldn't back her as CEO again - though he would back her as "chief science officer", before quickly changing the subject [2]. Again, he's clearly trying to show her some personal support as a friend and colleague when nobody else in the world will do that, whilst very clearly stopping short of endorsing or denying any criminal behaviour. What can you find that's more damning than this? And why is it so important to you that Tim Draper should have publicly trashed her? Is it not enough that basically every other media and investment figure in the world was trashing her? Do you not have anyone for whom you would publicly signal support, if they were at rock bottom and the rest of the world was piling onto them, even if you know they may have done the wrong thing? [1] https://cheddar.com/media/tim-draper-elizabeth-holmes-is-innocent-until-proven-guilty https://cheddar.com/media/tim-draper-elizabeth-holmes-is-inn... [2] https://theoutline.com/post/7157/one-of-theranos-first-investors-has-learned-approximately-nothing-from-its-implosion https://theoutline.com/post/7157/one-of-theranos-first-inves...

relaunched 5y ago

I'd argue that Tim Draper / DFJ going in early for $500k, and not following on, is a really strong signal.

kerblang 5y ago

Interesting... That crunchbase article directly links to 3 other VC/private equity firms that invested heavily: ATA Ventures, Partner Fund Mgmt, Fortress Investment Group. Usually I only hear about George Shultz, Henry Kissinger (and I was thinking the wal-mart family, but they're not listed). At any rate it's either close the "loophole" or accept the fact that proving intent to defraud is much harder than proving stupid. But at least we get to call them stupid.