3 ms·

> The point is consulting experts isn’t a fool-proof investing strategy. It will produce false negatives around paradigm-changing approaches while potentially b

> The point is consulting experts isn’t a fool-proof investing strategy. It will produce false negatives around paradigm-changing approaches while potentially bandwagonning on dead ends, e.g. amyloid plaques for Alzheimer’s. The point is that Theranos' investors didn't consult experts at all. They really were tech investors bandwagonning on to an obvious dead end! The ones that did consult experts - like the biotech VCs - were smart enough to stay away. Your experience with aerospace and some SpaceX critics is blinding you to the rather obvious Dunning-Kreuger effect going on here (FWLIW I worked on the MSL reentry shielding and Atlas payload fairing before transitioning to clinical trial design at Parexel).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Theranos' investors didn't consult experts at all What are you basing this on? > Theranos' investors didn't consult experts at all This isn't someone consulting experts. It's the experts themselves staying away. My point is that VCs consulting tech experts isn't a great signal per se. I believe it should be done. But I don't have any evidence that it works, given that it's properly ignored almost as frequently as it's followed. (It's difficult from a distance to distinguish something that can't be done from something the person you're talking to can't do or believes they can't.) Outside biotech, which has a parallel funding pipeline, the funds that obsessively consult experts don't do significantly better or worse from those who seem to YOLO it.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  >> Theranos' investors didn't consult experts at all > What are you basing this on? The original quote may be a tad hyperbolic, but there was lots of reporting that all of the "smart money" in SV declined to invest. Here is a story about how Google Ventures did the most basic of due diligence and could tell early on it was handwavy bullshit: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-maris-explains-why-gv-didnt-invest-in-theranos-2015-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-maris-explains-why-gv-d...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Theranos' investors didn't consult experts at all What are you basing this on? > Theranos' investors didn't consult experts at all This isn't someone consulting experts. It's the experts themselves staying away. My point is that VCs consulting tech experts isn't a great signal per se. I believe it should be done. But I don't have any evidence that it works, given that it's properly ignored almost as frequently as it's followed. (It's difficult from a distance to distinguish something that can't be done from something the person you're talking to can't do or believes they can't.) Outside biotech, which has a parallel funding pipeline, the funds that obsessively consult experts don't do significantly better or worse from those who seem to YOLO it.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
>> Theranos' investors didn't consult experts at all > What are you basing this on? The original quote may be a tad hyperbolic, but there was lots of reporting that all of the "smart money" in SV declined to invest. Here is a story about how Google Ventures did the most basic of due diligence and could tell early on it was handwavy bullshit: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-maris-explains-why-gv-didnt-invest-in-theranos-2015-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-maris-explains-why-gv-d...