A reasonable criterion for whether somebody sucks/is good at investing would be something like "what % return did you get over the last decade, and how does tha

A reasonable criterion for whether somebody sucks/is good at investing would be something like "what % return did you get over the last decade, and how does that compare to (a) markets in general and (b) other investors in your field?". If BVP passed on a bunch of great opportunities but also passed on a bunch of money-losing deadends, and on net got better % returns than the hypothetical alternative VC fund that took more of these but also lost a pile of cash on terrible startups, then BVP is making good decisions even given the failures. That a hundred-year old VC firm didn't identify every unicorn it ever had the opportunity to invest in doesn't seem very surprising to me.