[chromagnon]

I'm not sure that's true. It's very easy to build a failed business, but to build an overly hyped failed business, you need a taste of success to point to as indicating you are on a rocket ship ride to trillion dollar valuation.

It's pretty damn easy to create a fictious $100 million transaction with other insiders, then gloss over the details on the balance sheet.

[adventured]

> It's very easy to build a failed business, but to build an overly hyped failed business, you need a taste of success to point to as indicating you are on a rocket ship ride to trillion dollar valuation.

What does that have to do with Silicon Valley VCs intentionally forcing extreme binary outcomes because they are willing to burn down 98 companies to get 2 huge homeruns? There's no debate to be had, we have a lot of actual data in regards to the industry, which numerous prominent VC firms routinely publish. We also have multiple bubbles worth of history in regards to VC behavior and the general day to day crunchbase or VC funding news type information. There's a non-stop 20+ year history of Silicon Valley VCs doing exactly what I've described, leaving a vast parade of thousands of dead formerly multi-million dollar start-ups in their wake.

> It's pretty damn easy to create a fictious $100 million transaction with other insiders, then gloss over the details on the balance sheet.

I have no idea what you're talking about or how that pertains to what I said.

[chromagnon]

I think you are actually agreeing with me to some extent, that SV is based (partly? Largely?) on funny money.

I'm just pointing out that in addition to that, insider dealing and cooked books play a greater role in the funny money economy than anyone likes to talk about.