3 ms·

This is a romantic take and the only takeaway from it is that Fast failed because it failed. > They successfully hired a big, seemingly-experienced team (somet

by ljm 5y ago

This is a romantic take and the only takeaway from it is that Fast failed because it failed. > They successfully hired a big, seemingly-experienced team (something many companies struggle to do) So they hired a massive team of oncologists no expense spared, but their abiilty to deal with cancer isn't good enough > As it turns out, the risks were very real! Well, they wouldn't be risks otherwise.

cmeacham98 5y ago
Ironically, although you accuse your parent comment of this, I'm not sure what the intended takeaway of this comment is. You call it "romantic" but the rest of your comment is just restating/affirming two random points?
barrrrald 5y ago
If the question is "how did they get that valuation despite being a very bad business", it's simply that investors gave them too much forward credit against the very big risks they had to surmount, the biggest of which seemed to be the Founders lack of discipline and inability to execute properly. >> So they hired a massive team of oncologists no expense spared, but their abiilty to deal with cancer isn't good enough The Fast founders highlighted their team at every turn, showcasing trophy hires from larger, successful companies. Investors bought into this hard especially at the Series A and B fundraises, and believed that a strong executive and engineering bench de-risked the business more than they had. >> Well, they wouldn't be risks otherwise. Not to them! The issue here was the high degree of self-delusion and spin amongst their team and investors. They downplayed the challenges at every turn, and tried to convince others (and themselves) that they had already gotten past all the hard parts. As it turns out they had not.
caffeine 5y ago
> This is a romantic take and the only takeaway from it is that Fast failed because it failed. What is your take on why they failed?
- lnxg33k1 5y ago
  Because they failed https://cdn.ilbianconero.com/images/2018-07/SOCIAL.asamoah.meme.1.100718.1080x648.jpg https://cdn.ilbianconero.com/images/2018-07/SOCIAL.asamoah.m...

by ljm 5y ago

cmeacham98 5y ago

Ironically, although you accuse your parent comment of this, I'm not sure what the intended takeaway of this comment is. You call it "romantic" but the rest of your comment is just restating/affirming two random points?

barrrrald 5y ago

If the question is "how did they get that valuation despite being a very bad business", it's simply that investors gave them too much forward credit against the very big risks they had to surmount, the biggest of which seemed to be the Founders lack of discipline and inability to execute properly. >> So they hired a massive team of oncologists no expense spared, but their abiilty to deal with cancer isn't good enough The Fast founders highlighted their team at every turn, showcasing trophy hires from larger, successful companies. Investors bought into this hard especially at the Series A and B fundraises, and believed that a strong executive and engineering bench de-risked the business more than they had. >> Well, they wouldn't be risks otherwise. Not to them! The issue here was the high degree of self-delusion and spin amongst their team and investors. They downplayed the challenges at every turn, and tried to convince others (and themselves) that they had already gotten past all the hard parts. As it turns out they had not.

caffeine 5y ago

> This is a romantic take and the only takeaway from it is that Fast failed because it failed. What is your take on why they failed?

lnxg33k1 5y ago
Because they failed https://cdn.ilbianconero.com/images/2018-07/SOCIAL.asamoah.meme.1.100718.1080x648.jpg https://cdn.ilbianconero.com/images/2018-07/SOCIAL.asamoah.m...