[mcgodes]

I think its a decent argument and I partially buy it! But i worry it falls down partially due to generalization and maybe over-inclusion.

So I'll take the opposite side. Does "acting like VCs" by "evaluating companies and making bets" make you a VC? That kinda just seems like investing though right?

Is Bill Murray in "What About Bob?" really a sailor because he was duct-taped to the mast?? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrbY4hsNh64&ab_channel=jooki...)

[jrochkind1]

it starts sounding like "no true scotsman" though. If one sails, one is a sailor. Being duct-taped to a mast might not count as sailing though. If one invests in early-stage startups that are believed to have growth potential... I guess you can try to promulgate a different definition of what makes a VC, but if it starts sounding too much like "Those who act WISELY are VC's, those who act unwisely are not", or even "those who hobnob with us at parties are VC's, those who go to other parties are not" (Oh, they were on the East Coast not the West!), I'm not sure how objective or useful that is, for other than propaganda purposes.

What is the VC industries understanding/definition of VC then? The tweet thread doesn't leave me clear on it.

Wikipedia says "Founded in 2003 by 19-year-old Elizabeth Holmes, Theranos raised more than US$700 million from venture capitalists and private investors." Google theranos venture capital you can find plenty more references. Evans suggests it's a "straight fuck-up by fact-checkers" to do so, which seems overly-defensive and just plain odd to me.