4 ms·

> There is nothing that is a red flag for me in the above story. Elizabeth? Is that you?

by jen20 3y ago

refurb 3y ago
If Elizabeth Holmes had been able to pull off some successful product that made a lot of money, no doubt all the "fake it 'til you make it" she did at the beginning (showing demos that didn't work, sending tests to outside labs and saying they were run on their equipment) would have been forgiven no doubt. Just another nostalgic Silicon Valley "hustler" story.
- kelipso 3y ago
  She really only got into trouble because her lies became obvious and she risked people's lives. If it was some CRUD app and she didn't get enough customers or whatever, more than likely she'd have gotten money for another company.
  - shapefrog 3y ago
    > she risked people's lives She was found not guilty of that bit. The conviction and jail time is only for defrauding the investors.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Only that Theranos product was techically impossible. Which makes the whole thing even crazier, nobody did even the slightest due dilligence there. Seems to be par of th cours so, other exhibits are FTX and WeWork.
  - bhouston 3y ago
    The core FTX crypto exchange business was very profitable. But Alameda wasn't. Also everyone at FTX was committing fraud.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Based on what financial statements do we know FTX was profitable? Also, the stole customer funds.
      - bhouston 3y ago
        > Based on what financial statements do we know FTX was profitable? The crypto-exchange part I have read many times it was profitable. Running an exchange is a profitable endeavour as you just take a cut of all transactions. As long as you control your costs it is a money printer. The rest of FTX was full of fraud and Alameda was a money sink via unprofitable speculation. Also likely helping laundry money as well via poor KYC. Running an exchange is a great business though if you have the volume, doesn't matter if it is crypto or futures or stocks.
        play_ac 3y ago
        No, crypto exchanges are only profitable as a result of massive wash trading and scamming. If they had to actually compete the margins would be hilariously low. Probably even lower than a typical bank because the product is just worse.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > If Elizabeth Holmes had been able to pull off some successful product Like Loopt?
- astrange 3y ago
  Theranos wasn't a Silicon Valley company - nobody in SV invested in it except Draper (who's a nutcase) because they all thought it was a scam. It was an affinity fraud on non-SV rich people founded on acting like a tech company.

> There is nothing that is a red flag for me in the above story. Elizabeth? Is that you?

by jen20 3y ago

> There is nothing that is a red flag for me in the above story. Elizabeth? Is that you?

If Elizabeth Holmes had been able to pull off some successful product that made a lot of money, no doubt all the "fake it 'til you make it" she did at the beginning (showing demos that didn't work, sending tests to outside labs and saying they were run on their equipment) would have been forgiven no doubt. Just another nostalgic Silicon Valley "hustler" story.

kelipso 3y ago
She really only got into trouble because her lies became obvious and she risked people's lives. If it was some CRUD app and she didn't get enough customers or whatever, more than likely she'd have gotten money for another company.
- shapefrog 3y ago
  > she risked people's lives She was found not guilty of that bit. The conviction and jail time is only for defrauding the investors.
hef19898 3y ago
Only that Theranos product was techically impossible. Which makes the whole thing even crazier, nobody did even the slightest due dilligence there. Seems to be par of th cours so, other exhibits are FTX and WeWork.
- bhouston 3y ago
  The core FTX crypto exchange business was very profitable. But Alameda wasn't. Also everyone at FTX was committing fraud.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Based on what financial statements do we know FTX was profitable? Also, the stole customer funds.
    - bhouston 3y ago
      > Based on what financial statements do we know FTX was profitable? The crypto-exchange part I have read many times it was profitable. Running an exchange is a profitable endeavour as you just take a cut of all transactions. As long as you control your costs it is a money printer. The rest of FTX was full of fraud and Alameda was a money sink via unprofitable speculation. Also likely helping laundry money as well via poor KYC. Running an exchange is a great business though if you have the volume, doesn't matter if it is crypto or futures or stocks.
      - play_ac 3y ago
        No, crypto exchanges are only profitable as a result of massive wash trading and scamming. If they had to actually compete the margins would be hilariously low. Probably even lower than a typical bank because the product is just worse.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> If Elizabeth Holmes had been able to pull off some successful product Like Loopt?
astrange 3y ago
Theranos wasn't a Silicon Valley company - nobody in SV invested in it except Draper (who's a nutcase) because they all thought it was a scam. It was an affinity fraud on non-SV rich people founded on acting like a tech company.