That sounds like they were a bit uncharacteristic as a dot com in the sense that they had intellectual property that survived the company that was actually wort

That sounds like they were a bit uncharacteristic as a dot com in the sense that they had intellectual property that survived the company that was actually worth something and executives that weren't half bad that Amazon later took over as well and a target market that was actually somewhat real. Sure, it failed and VCs got greedy and pushed for an IPO. But then ten years later Amazon acquires the tech, and the people, and builds a decent business from it. A lot of dot com companies during the bubble had none of that. An MBA with a silly/incoherent idea and a half baked website were all it took to get funding. VCs were throwing money at anything that had a website at some point. They were desperate to get some of the action. Most of those companies were literally created to tap into that kind of stupid money. The dot com bubble was VCs throwing money at absolutely bat shit crazy stuff; and then losing badly when the bubble burst. This wasn't that bad in comparison. I mean WeWork isn't that different. Or Uber. Or Air BnB. Rapid growth funded. Arguably all cases where the investors maybe got a bit too greedy but also companies that are generating real revenue out of markets that do exist with a service that consumers are willing to pay for.