2 ms·
If you look at Theranos, the major funding sources were not traditional vcs. Total investment: $724m, approx. Waltons: $150m, Rupert Murdoch: $121m, Cox famil
by x0x0 5y ago
If you look at Theranos, the major funding sources were not traditional vcs.
Total investment: $724m, approx. Waltons: $150m, Rupert Murdoch: $121m, Cox family: $100m, DeVos family: $100m, Carlos Slim: $30m, etc. I count at least $559m from non-vc sources [1].
And then you have hedge funds like Partner Fund Management: $96m. Whether you consider them a traditional vc or not, per their lawsuit, Theranos faked blood test results. I guess you can blame them, but I'm not sure how much duedil is going to catch wholesale fraud.
MedVenture, a vc, did due diligence and didn't invest. GV turned them down.
VCs certainly didn't make Walgreens not do duedil before partnering with Theranos. etc.
I don't think Theranos is proof that vcs are, as a class, incompetent and just want a story.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-cost-business-and-government-leaders-more-than-600-million-1525392082 https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-cost-business-and-gove...
- paxys 5y agoYup, exactly. I always bring up Theranos as a success case for Silicon Valley VCs. At the surface level it should have been a slam dunk investment from day 1 – charismatic female founder, industry connections, lofty ideas, market buzz, potential revolutionary tech. Yet every single VC firm we know of passed on them. And outside investors who tried to take the short-cut to the valley got burned.