“Our theoretical framework captures how entrepreneurs facing minor, wide, and extreme expectation-reality gaps engage in evermore sophisticated efforts to detach the venture’s externally projected appearance from its actual operational reality.”
Look, I’m not promoting fraud at all, but having been doing seed raising for the last eight months, there have been many times where I thought the only way to compete was by fudging the numbers (because everyone else is, basically). It’s one of several reasons I left this game and am pursuing non-traditional means of funding now.
You highlighted the basis for widespread corruption. At some point you no longer do it to get an unfair advantage, you do it because without it you get an unfair disadvantage. Widespread fraud is no different.
I’m really not trying to virtue signal. There’s a lot more nuance to my reasoning to leave the traditional VC game. All of them led me to declaring it fundamentally incompatible with my world view. Which then led me to my current path of attempting to form a syndicate of like-minded individuals.
But this study validates a lot of feelings I’ve had over the last several months. There’s a ton of people that never get caught, of course.
Oh, I did not take it as virtue signaling at all! I do actually admire you for looking at a dirty game and saying "I will not play this, I will find a better way."
If I ever win the lottery, I'm going to create the Joseph Welch Foundation. The foundation will give monetary awards to people who have demonstrably pushed back against corruption, lies, and bullshit.
For those who don't recognize the name, Joseph Welch is who said "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last, have you left no sense of decency?" to Joseph McCarthy.
Too few people remember Welch. McCarthy was the asshole but his name is remembered more. I see this as an error we have made with our societal memory. It would be better to remember Welch, and only remember McCarthy as "that red scare guy".
A lot of 'numbers' startups cite are basically fake I think. Like if someone says we have this many users as a statement to TechCrunch you have no idea what they are actually calculating
But there is a clear line that gets crossed if you start actually making a database of millions of synthetic users and that's what happened with 'Frank' that sold to JP Morgan and eventually the founder was prosecuted
In the current environment I doubt Elizabeth Holmes would go to prison. She would be saying the machine would work by early next year. After all a drop of blood is just a smaller quantity. Making the machine work is just an engineering problem.
If she were really clever she would recruit a social media army of all the weird conspiracy theorists who think "medbeds" are real.
Of course now we know that a drop of capillary blood containing interstitial fluid and a random mix of venous and arterial blood is unsuitable for most blood tests. At least you will have googled that if you're an Elon stan preparing to tell me how they're not comparable.
The big difference was that she was in the medical field. She used her machines that worked unreliability on patients and caused actual damage to humans. Then she noticed that this could be a problem and switched to blood analyzer from Siemens. But she still continued to say that the machines do work. She lied to investors. I still feel her case is a lot different to what musk is doing. I think you can definitely say “coming next year” and actually needing 5 years. You cannot blatantly lie and harm people along the way
Are you a biochemist? Would the Theranos machine have worked with new tests using new reagents? Is the needed blood volume not similar to, for example, payload capacity? Are we discriminating against people who affect an unusual voice?
It wouldn't have worked, period. You can't use capillary blood for the kind of blood tests they were claiming to. It's statistically impossible because the sample isn't big enough and drawing more capillary blood doesn't improve the SNR. Two samples taken at the same time from different spots on the same finger can yield wildly different results.
Everyone in diagnostic medicine knows this (they've been dealing with this problem since the glucose finger prick test). That's why no biotech VC ever invested in Theranos and they had to get tech VCs and fancy board members like Henry Kissinger. A cursory glance at the proposal by someone qualified would have shut that down immediately, but tech VCs don't do due diligence anymore.
You might need to qualify that a bit harder or someone could quite easily point out that all of these worthless shitdribblers cause actual damage to humans.
They all lie, they all continue to claim that they hold the future in their feeble sticky hands.
Just to take, take, take.
You seem fixated on lying being a problem but only one of these two liars causes you to feel that her case is different? Maybe the difference between the two is in the lie of the beholder.
> Like if someone says we have this many users as a statement you have no idea what they are actually calculating
I think that's BS. User metrics are usually very explicitly defined (e.g. monthly or daily active users have always been clearly defined wherever I've worked, even if just for the sole reason that people collecting those numbers need to know what to count). User quality is definitely a gray area and estimating bot percentage has become increasingly difficult, but user metrics are not some ill-defined, fuzzy math notion.
Right I'm not saying that Zuck's staff doesn't know how to calculate MAU or ARR. I'm saying I'm not sure we can trust the 'median' (median on a scale of super-scrupulous to outright-dishonest) CEO is not counting things like inactive cohorts, newsletter subscribers, website hits when counting 'users'... or being very optimistic about whether a customer will renew when calculating 'recurring revenue'
I may be wrong! But I am definitely giving such claims the side-eye
This is an area where deception is possible. For example, if the metric is background API calls, you can fake that too. What matters is how you define 'active users.' In fact, this is a common technique used in well known scam apps in Korea, often called 'vanity metrics.' Generating abusive users and background traffic that create no real business value, then packaging it as user growth. There are even people who specialize in this.
if someone says they have a billion users because they are connected to the doubleclick exchange... they aren't lying, they might be deceptive or simply foolish.
As part of due diligence, the buyer/investor should ask how these numbers are calculated and make their own judgement. Unfortunately I believe startups select for those who dance the border of deceptive and foolish.
I'm surprised there was no mention of Elizabeth Holmes. Whenever there is mention of criminal deception of any sort, she's like the poster child for it in my eyes. And I remember her accomplice who instead of admitting he was on the wrong side, kept blaming the journalist who tried to uncover the fraud, instead. He said (something along the lines of) "He (the journalist) kept coming at her.." as if she would've been able to magically solve the problem if she had enough time.
That was all I needed to know about what was wrong about valley culture.
The more you force unrealistic expectations of exponential growth, the more founders engage in 'façading.' This feels a lot like multi-level marketing and a game of hot potato—keeping the early investors' returns safe by bringing in new capital.
The paper's concept of 'deep façading' follows the same pattern. When a product fails to generate sustainable value or revenue in the market, founders create fake metrics to protect the book returns of early investors and attract the next round of funding. Instead of being driven by real customer value, the company's valuation is inflated by the next investor's money—creating a multi-level pyramid.
The successful hot potato is WeWork, handed off to SoftBank and public market retail investors. The failed one is Theranos.
“Our theoretical framework captures how entrepreneurs facing minor, wide, and extreme expectation-reality gaps engage in evermore sophisticated efforts to detach the venture’s externally projected appearance from its actual operational reality.”
Look, I’m not promoting fraud at all, but having been doing seed raising for the last eight months, there have been many times where I thought the only way to compete was by fudging the numbers (because everyone else is, basically). It’s one of several reasons I left this game and am pursuing non-traditional means of funding now.
Thank you for having an ethical standard and the will to adhere to it.
Was it fudging expected numbers (forecast), or fudging actual numbers (revenue, etc)?
VCs are looking for a long-tail, if you have a 1% chance at 5B - 1T market, this is more interesting and impactful than 10% chance at 5M market.
And yes, 1% chance of success is considered to be unrealistic by common sense standards.
You highlighted the basis for widespread corruption. At some point you no longer do it to get an unfair advantage, you do it because without it you get an unfair disadvantage. Widespread fraud is no different.
Good on you for saying no to committing fraud! It really sucks that this is unusual enough that it warrants a bit of positive feedback!
I’m really not trying to virtue signal. There’s a lot more nuance to my reasoning to leave the traditional VC game. All of them led me to declaring it fundamentally incompatible with my world view. Which then led me to my current path of attempting to form a syndicate of like-minded individuals.
But this study validates a lot of feelings I’ve had over the last several months. There’s a ton of people that never get caught, of course.
Oh, I did not take it as virtue signaling at all! I do actually admire you for looking at a dirty game and saying "I will not play this, I will find a better way."
If I ever win the lottery, I'm going to create the Joseph Welch Foundation. The foundation will give monetary awards to people who have demonstrably pushed back against corruption, lies, and bullshit.
For those who don't recognize the name, Joseph Welch is who said "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last, have you left no sense of decency?" to Joseph McCarthy.
Too few people remember Welch. McCarthy was the asshole but his name is remembered more. I see this as an error we have made with our societal memory. It would be better to remember Welch, and only remember McCarthy as "that red scare guy".
A lot of 'numbers' startups cite are basically fake I think. Like if someone says we have this many users as a statement to TechCrunch you have no idea what they are actually calculating
But there is a clear line that gets crossed if you start actually making a database of millions of synthetic users and that's what happened with 'Frank' that sold to JP Morgan and eventually the founder was prosecuted
>"A lot of 'numbers' startups cite are basically fake I think."
I like Ed Zitron's reporting on the AI industry (though I disagree with him on AI's potential capabilities).
I wonder how much of AI-related revenue are because of accounting fiction rather than actual cash.
Either way, I think the stock market is as disconnected as it has ever been with actually ground reality of the US economy and industry.
In the current environment I doubt Elizabeth Holmes would go to prison. She would be saying the machine would work by early next year. After all a drop of blood is just a smaller quantity. Making the machine work is just an engineering problem.
If she were really clever she would recruit a social media army of all the weird conspiracy theorists who think "medbeds" are real.
Of course now we know that a drop of capillary blood containing interstitial fluid and a random mix of venous and arterial blood is unsuitable for most blood tests. At least you will have googled that if you're an Elon stan preparing to tell me how they're not comparable.
The big difference was that she was in the medical field. She used her machines that worked unreliability on patients and caused actual damage to humans. Then she noticed that this could be a problem and switched to blood analyzer from Siemens. But she still continued to say that the machines do work. She lied to investors. I still feel her case is a lot different to what musk is doing. I think you can definitely say “coming next year” and actually needing 5 years. You cannot blatantly lie and harm people along the way
Are you a biochemist? Would the Theranos machine have worked with new tests using new reagents? Is the needed blood volume not similar to, for example, payload capacity? Are we discriminating against people who affect an unusual voice?
It wouldn't have worked, period. You can't use capillary blood for the kind of blood tests they were claiming to. It's statistically impossible because the sample isn't big enough and drawing more capillary blood doesn't improve the SNR. Two samples taken at the same time from different spots on the same finger can yield wildly different results.
Everyone in diagnostic medicine knows this (they've been dealing with this problem since the glucose finger prick test). That's why no biotech VC ever invested in Theranos and they had to get tech VCs and fancy board members like Henry Kissinger. A cursory glance at the proposal by someone qualified would have shut that down immediately, but tech VCs don't do due diligence anymore.
> caused actual damage to humans
You might need to qualify that a bit harder or someone could quite easily point out that all of these worthless shitdribblers cause actual damage to humans. They all lie, they all continue to claim that they hold the future in their feeble sticky hands. Just to take, take, take. You seem fixated on lying being a problem but only one of these two liars causes you to feel that her case is different? Maybe the difference between the two is in the lie of the beholder.
> Like if someone says we have this many users as a statement you have no idea what they are actually calculating
I think that's BS. User metrics are usually very explicitly defined (e.g. monthly or daily active users have always been clearly defined wherever I've worked, even if just for the sole reason that people collecting those numbers need to know what to count). User quality is definitely a gray area and estimating bot percentage has become increasingly difficult, but user metrics are not some ill-defined, fuzzy math notion.
Right I'm not saying that Zuck's staff doesn't know how to calculate MAU or ARR. I'm saying I'm not sure we can trust the 'median' (median on a scale of super-scrupulous to outright-dishonest) CEO is not counting things like inactive cohorts, newsletter subscribers, website hits when counting 'users'... or being very optimistic about whether a customer will renew when calculating 'recurring revenue'
I may be wrong! But I am definitely giving such claims the side-eye
The “Active” part of “Monthly Active Users” can mean an awful lot of things
Seems like your “increasingly difficult” part is kinda what they meant.
This is an area where deception is possible. For example, if the metric is background API calls, you can fake that too. What matters is how you define 'active users.' In fact, this is a common technique used in well known scam apps in Korea, often called 'vanity metrics.' Generating abusive users and background traffic that create no real business value, then packaging it as user growth. There are even people who specialize in this.
if someone says they have a billion users because they are connected to the doubleclick exchange... they aren't lying, they might be deceptive or simply foolish.
As part of due diligence, the buyer/investor should ask how these numbers are calculated and make their own judgement. Unfortunately I believe startups select for those who dance the border of deceptive and foolish.
> they aren't lying, they might be deceptive
I think that’s well within the bounds of what most people would consider to be a “lie”. The legal system has more specific definitions, though.
I'm surprised there was no mention of Elizabeth Holmes. Whenever there is mention of criminal deception of any sort, she's like the poster child for it in my eyes. And I remember her accomplice who instead of admitting he was on the wrong side, kept blaming the journalist who tried to uncover the fraud, instead. He said (something along the lines of) "He (the journalist) kept coming at her.." as if she would've been able to magically solve the problem if she had enough time.
That was all I needed to know about what was wrong about valley culture.
Seems they use the nickname 'ScaleX' to discuss Theranos
The more you force unrealistic expectations of exponential growth, the more founders engage in 'façading.' This feels a lot like multi-level marketing and a game of hot potato—keeping the early investors' returns safe by bringing in new capital.
The paper's concept of 'deep façading' follows the same pattern. When a product fails to generate sustainable value or revenue in the market, founders create fake metrics to protect the book returns of early investors and attract the next round of funding. Instead of being driven by real customer value, the company's valuation is inflated by the next investor's money—creating a multi-level pyramid.
The successful hot potato is WeWork, handed off to SoftBank and public market retail investors. The failed one is Theranos.
façading has made Elon Musk very rich.