My commentary is this,

The quantification of the relationship between her leadership role and the direct effectiveness of the product is quite different than many other successful founder/CEOs. It is that which blinded her from either pivoting or acknowledging the reality of low effectiveness. A circumstance which to others would be justification to shutdown.

Unless this was all well understood and then that would enter into discussions of willful negligence. A characteristic that has consequences as people's livelihood were expected to be affected.

The spectacle is negatively impact ing startup partnerships. The result is either more due diligence with all parties, which either translates to more funding and a longer IPO journey, or cutting off these less mature startups at the knees early from funding until "results" are evident.

Another question is will this situation coupled with general lack luster equity market enthusiasm be incorrect fodder for "bubble" talk (barring this a straw on camel back scenario - doubt it).