There's a difference between VCs funding a moonshot idea and VCs funding some stupid idea. For instance, Amgen and Genentech were founded by VCs, with VC fundin

There's a difference between VCs funding a moonshot idea and VCs funding some stupid idea. For instance, Amgen and Genentech were founded by VCs, with VC funding, as were Google, Amazon, etc. The difference back then was that VCs actually did their due diligence as part of their duty. Back then, it was much harder to get VC funding in the first place - the science had to be at least 90% sound, the metrics had to be solid, the numbers out with an open book. For example, Google only raised a $25m Series A by the time they were already widely well known, almost a household name. My critique is not about the VC funding model. It's about VCs not doing any due diligence these days but just chasing the next hype cycle.