When the shitcoin bubble completely falls apart (a process which it may be going through right now), we might see a bunch of Theranoses popping up.
Eh, I dunno. I'm not a big cryptocurrency fan, but that doesn't really sound like the current reality. It may have lost a lot of its December peak value, but the value of cryptocurrencies is still about where it was in November and has been stable there for a month or two. That's still a lot higher than the first ten months of 2017 (and previous years), so "completely falls apart" seems a bit strong.
Eventually you burn enough people and there's nobody left to scam, or governments step in to regulate it. There's a reason you don't see stock peddling scams anymore.
Watching 'dominance' of the various coins is an informative indicator (IMO) of the overall health of the system. https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/ (3rd chart down) Obviously market cap is an extremely fraught metric for coins (trade one token for $1.00, with a supply of trillions, and it's 'worth' trillions), but it should average out somewhat.
Bitcoin is recovering a bit of dominance (which I think is a good sign), but that growing 'other' portion suggests that there's a lot of garbage, and that's only growing. So I agree with you; the crypto space is taking on more dubious value, more shitcoins, etc.
I feel like it has lost its influence over the last few years as folks are a bit more clued in now, so I see another Theranos as _slightly_ less likely.
(And is it an episode of black mirror that I'm even on this train of thought?)
In a way, it's worse than the ads on the internet promising to cure cancer with nettles and probiotics and yoga. Online ad scammers can plead ignorance that what they sell isn't actually useful, and I'm sure there're legal disclaimers in fine print saying the products are sold purely for entertainment. Theranos, on the other hand...
The whistleblowing is based on the data 'grooming' that their machines did, which made it look like the machines were more accurate than they actually were. Tyler Shultz brought up his concerns and was rebuked, and then went to the WSJ.
The basic idea is that their machines didn't actually work.
Specifically, what got him in trouble is probably his public persona as much as his actual crimes. Plus... he was stupid enough to violate the terms of his probation and got thrown into jail. I don't think most executives are anywhere as stupid.
It was a last straw, not a sole offense.
To use a crude analogy, if you're wronged, are you more likely to be vindictive if the transgressor is a close relative, or a complete stranger?
If he had simply closed his mouth for a while, I suspect he would have gotten a slap on the wrist.
The board was scammed by her and lost billions of potential dollars, so that's probably not why. If anything, I wonder the opposite, why the connected people didn't do more; I'm guessing it's because destroying her further isn't worth their time?
I think it is fair to summarize the literal job, and legal responsibility, of the board as don't get scammed
They aren't ma and pa kettle...