And for an example of a startup that didn't survive, take Pebble, $15m in VC funding, ended up being sold for $23m. Not sure though how much of that actually went back to the VC. And this was a startup that had a paying customer base, active development community and a product in many big-chain stores.
Away from the hype there is also the tax problem (the elephant in the room in most cryptocurrency/ICO articles). The country where the company is based and how it implements rules to tax and control such money might influence this at lot. A company is arguably starting with the wrong foot by thinking that it can get away from taxation with such money.
But besides money isn't a lot of the startup scene also about disruption ?
edited: typo and final question
"...most tech startups that survive are sold rather than become public companies. "
The article then explains that "The value of U.S. technology company acquisitions fell by 66 percent in the first six months of 2017 compared with the same stretch a year ago".
All this analysis is interesting but unfortunately there is no mention of the tech startups that don't survive. I believe that might be the key factor for this.
It would also be nice to survey how many silicon valley startups are considering ICO's instead of IPO's and try to reason if that might bring new impact into the scene.