News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by carlosdp on Friday October 22, 2021 @07:27AM (#28955905)
For the 1000th time, a total of 0 (zero) VCs that most people would associate with "silicon valley" invested in Theranos, and the board was all made up of political and business figures like Kissinger.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by jasode on Friday October 22, 2021 @07:36AM (#28955994)
>For the 1000th time, a total of 0 (zero) VCs that most people would associate with "silicon valley" invested in Theranos

Well, Tim Draper is a VC that people would associate with "Silicon Valley". (portfolio: https://www.dfj.com/)

The first $500k seed came from DFJ.[1]

But somewhat to your point, Elizabeth Holmes did not get his backing via the typical "VC due diligence" channel. Instead, she was childhood friends with Draper's daughter. Apparently, her charm completely bypassed his VC radar for detecting bullshit.

[1] https://news.crunchbase.com/news/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-t....

Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by FiberBundle on Friday October 22, 2021 @08:12AM (#28956289)
Draper actually continues to back her [1], recently (2019 tbf, but after the release of the Carreyrou book) claiming that Theranos has opened the door for other companies to make progress in the blood test area.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vqliQZv1ehA&t=410s

Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by tomhoward on Friday October 22, 2021 @09:46AM (#28957117)
In a world where the most founder-friendly investors get the best deals, what makes more sense for Tim Draper: throwing Holmes, a family friend, under a bus, or signaling to other founders and friends that he’ll stick by them to the bitter end?
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by FiberBundle on Friday October 22, 2021 @10:34AM (#28957724)
Not supporting fraud seems like a reasonable option to me.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by tomhoward on Friday October 22, 2021 @11:07AM (#28958192)
It's a super-easy thing to say on a message board where none of us have any skin in the game.

Can you point to the statement where he supported fraud or asserted that she was innocent of any crime?

If you need me to I can point you to a statement where he said he wouldn't back her as a CEO again.

You know it is possible to signal support to a friend and colleague when they're at rock bottom and with the entire world piling onto them, without endorsing the worst of their actions, right?

Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by rrss on Friday October 22, 2021 @11:30AM (#28958477)
Draper has repeatedly said that he doesn’t think Holmes did anything wrong. He thinks that her downfall is because of a “witch hunt,” that she is a “great icon” “bullied into submission” by a corrupt FDA and big healthcare, and has said that he is “thrilled” with what she did at theranos.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by tomhoward on Friday October 22, 2021 @11:51AM (#28958722)
The last time I can find him saying anything about her fraud allegations was in May 2018, saying she's "innocent until proven guilty", which is a simple assertion of a fundamental legal principle, and a way of showing some humanity to a friend without defending or denying any crimes that may later be found to have been committed.

The last time I can find him saying anything publicly about her, he said he wouldn't back her as CEO again - though he would back her as "chief science officer", before quickly changing the subject [2]. Again, he's clearly trying to show her some personal support as a friend and colleague when nobody else in the world will do that, whilst very clearly stopping short of endorsing or denying any criminal behaviour.

What can you find that's more damning than this?

And why is it so important to you that Tim Draper should have publicly trashed her? Is it not enough that basically every other media and investment figure in the world was trashing her? Do you not have anyone for whom you would publicly signal support, if they were at rock bottom and the rest of the world was piling onto them, even if you know they may have done the wrong thing?

[1] https://cheddar.com/media/tim-draper-elizabeth-holmes-is-inn...

[2] https://theoutline.com/post/7157/one-of-theranos-first-inves...

Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by FiberBundle on Friday October 22, 2021 @11:53AM (#28958749)
I agree that it's easy to say this here, but I still fail to see what example a VC would want to set by doing what Draper has done here. Is this supposed to show that he's standing behind his founders even if they commit fraud? There's a huge difference between being founder friendly and doing what Draper did imo.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by tomhoward on Friday October 22, 2021 @12:15PM (#28959047)
As per the links in my most recent comment [1], he hasn't defended or denied any crimes of which she's been found guilty (she's yet to be found guilty of anything), and days after she was indicted in June 2018 said simply that she's "innocent until proven guilty". He's said basically nothing about her since. I can't find anything at all he's said publicly about her since March 2019, in which he notably reduced the level of support he was willing to express, and also notably said the barest minimum thing he could say in her support, before moving on as quickly as possible.

You know there are people in the world who think things like: I was the first person to show her support when nobody else did, and so now I'm going to be the last person to keep supporting her when nobody else will. It won't cost me anything to show that I still care about her even if she's done wrong. If I don't, who else will? Some people sleep better at night doing that, rather than joining the mob taking delight in laying the boots in.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28958722

Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by throwawayswede on Friday October 22, 2021 @10:40AM (#28957807)
At least not defending it. You can find a million and one ways to justify being evil.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by Waterluvian on Friday October 22, 2021 @08:38AM (#28956503)
Is that backing her or is that licking his own embarrassing wounds?
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by FiberBundle on Friday October 22, 2021 @09:01AM (#28956704)
I didn't find the right video earlier. This was actually what I was looking for and since he said in the more recent video that he hasn't changed his mind on this, he probably still feels that Holmes is in some way a victim in all of this: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/05/10/vc-draper-theranos-fou...
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by easytiger on Friday October 22, 2021 @09:51AM (#28957174)
I hadn't seen that before. Draper completely out of line there.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by Waterluvian on Friday October 22, 2021 @12:31PM (#28959279)
Just like how George Shultz comes off in the book, it feels like Draper is still brainwashed and living in denial.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by relaunched on Friday October 22, 2021 @09:19AM (#28956850)
I'd argue that Tim Draper / DFJ going in early for $500k, and not following on, is a really strong signal.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by kerblang on Friday October 22, 2021 @10:54AM (#28958019)
Interesting... That crunchbase article directly links to 3 other VC/private equity firms that invested heavily: ATA Ventures, Partner Fund Mgmt, Fortress Investment Group. Usually I only hear about George Shultz, Henry Kissinger (and I was thinking the wal-mart family, but they're not listed).

At any rate it's either close the "loophole" or accept the fact that proving intent to defraud is much harder than proving stupid. But at least we get to call them stupid.

Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by throwawayswede on Friday October 22, 2021 @07:39AM (#28956022)
/s/bypassed/overloaded
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by HPsquared on Friday October 22, 2021 @08:44AM (#28956543)
Overloading the opponent's radar with false signals is a good jamming method, after all.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by capableweb on Friday October 22, 2021 @07:33AM (#28955958)
The article doesn't seem to be about hating "Silicon Valley" type VCs, but more VCs in general so not sure where this comment comes from, or why you'd have to repeat a comeback so many times to an argument that doesn't even seem to be made in the first place.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by rsynnott on Friday October 22, 2021 @09:11AM (#28956784)
When people talk about VCs here, they normally mean venture capital firms, who are relatively sophisticated, do due diligence, etc. The vast bulk of Theranos's investment came from, for want of a better term, elderly rich people operating in a personal capacity. I mean, you _could_ call Betsy DeVos or Rupert Murdoch VCs, but it's not how people typically understand the term.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by dnautics on Friday October 22, 2021 @09:33AM (#28956986)
Doing due diligence and doing due diligence well are separate things. I have seen so many fictional or peri-impossible (impossible or "extremely implausible at current tech levels") tech get venture in silicon valley.

For example, there was a company called blue turtle that claimed to want to build a bacterium that provided gaucher's disease enzyme as a probiotic supplement. I mean technically speaking it's not impossible, but there are so many things that 'dont exist yet and would need to be engineered' that I couldn't see it making it as a company.

Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by rsynnott on Friday October 22, 2021 @10:26AM (#28957615)
Oh, absolutely. A lot of VC firms are quite bad at due diligence. However, if you believe John Carreyrou, the big investors mostly weren't thinking along those lines, and some attempts to get investment from real VCs were stymied by the most basic due diligence (one pulled out when Theranos was unable to produce audited accounts, for instance).

Notably, one early investor said, in interviews, that he was comfortable investing because Holmes' grandfather was a businessman, and another relative was a famous doctor (presumably the theory was that she was thus _genetically_ good at medical tech businesses?!). These were, by and large, very much the opposite of sophisticated investors.

Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by colechristensen on Friday October 22, 2021 @09:55AM (#28957208)
To be fair, engineering bacteria to produce a single enzyme as an MVP is an afternoon activity for a single person. You can watch it done on youtube. (you do have to wait some weeks to get your gene sequences or plasmids or whatever manufactured then you have to culture etc. and it doesn’t always work…) But in general it’s not out of the ordinary to think you could do the engineering part in a day.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by dnautics on Friday October 22, 2021 @10:53AM (#28958007)
Even a trivial due dill on cerezyme which is the gaucher's disease enzyme that blue turtle was proposing would have revealed that approved formulation is encapsulated in a membrane, has a membrane anchor (which bacteria cannot natively produce), has glycosylated protein (which bacteria cannot natively produce), not to mention "how the hell do you deliver a protein through the intestinal barrier" and "how do you target probiotic to the intestine", "how do you keep intestinal probiotics there", "what is the plan to measure uptake variations in the population" etc. etc.

Like seriously, i was able to look this up on wikipedia in the timespan of their demo pitch.

Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by hatmatrix on Friday October 22, 2021 @07:39AM (#28956020)
This article is a hot mess for the reason you said, but also for saying Elizabeth Holmes is the scapegoat of investors (who didn't do due diligence) for the endangering people's health. If she was selling death machines that's one thing, but she (through her company) made fraudulent claims about the accuracy of their device not only to investors but also the doctors and patients.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by swalsh on Friday October 22, 2021 @07:59AM (#28956167)
The fraudlent claims to doctors and patients is the bit that really makes me fume about the company. I really could care less about VC money being squandered. But people made critical health decisions based on these results.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget ... by bigbillheck on Friday October 22, 2021 @09:22AM (#28956877)
How many SV startups does a VC have to invest in before they become associated?