I think some of the anger is entirely natural and expected - it&#x27;s not just that Theranos failed, or that their ideas were bad to begin with, it&#x27;s that they behaved unethically, in poor faith, and illegally to boot.<p>First of all, their fraud endangered people. People rely on blood diagnostics to save their lives and maintain their health - their fraud is not as simple as failing to clean your home or failing to bring you dinner. Much of the anger I think isn&#x27;t even from the perspective of Silicon Valley, it&#x27;s simply being angry at a company that put many people at risk via deep, systemic, and willful fraud.<p>On a tribal level, their behavior also reflects on us, because we&#x27;re all part of this Silicon Valley pool. When a member of your &quot;tribe&quot; behaves poorly IMO it&#x27;s entirely natural to feel anger at them.<p>On a higher and more pragmatic level, Theranos&#x27; behavior to some degree threatens the health of the industry, by inviting more heavy-handed regulation, and bringing more intense scrutiny from both outside and inside (one can argue both these things are justified, though). We&#x27;ve generally operated so far under the idea that everyone (for the most part) is behaving in good faith, that startup failures are honest failures, and don&#x27;t involve unprecedented, deep, systemic fraud.<p>There is also anger at investors in general, stemming from a general feeling that they aren&#x27;t doing enough to police bad behavior from their founders. Startup failures are to be expected - they are core to the SV model - but in general whenever SV companies behave egregiously badly their investors are entirely mute. This is doubly infuriating when, like in Theranos&#x27; case, the bad behavior has serious consequences.