[flagged]
That statement is pretty naive. There are plenty of things that can kill a startup without them having done anything specifically wrong at any level, let alone at the level of technical team.
Did this company need to burn their entire round in a single year? Probably not. Could they have established themselves with lower operating expenses and still grown over time? Probably.
Now how do you draw a line from that to the probability that the technical team that has been let go is not high quality?
People who can't asses fair value of a business from a discounted cashflow perspective shouldn't be running a company. It's usually financially ignorant people like this that lead the business down a dark path. The prior round valuation, and thus the implicitly underwritten future expectations of growth, is evidence enough that something along these lines happened here.
> Lot of talented folks in Seattle and beyond who'll be looking for new gigs.
Which you took issue with and suggested the failure was counter evidence. That was pretty clearly about the technical team that was just let go, so that idea doesn't hold much water.
Beyond that, the mere existence of failure doesn't mean that the plan wasn't reasonable; you need a lot more data to determine if the mgmt team was functioning well. I have no opinion on the particulars here because I don't know the details. But the contention that the fact of failure alone is clear indication is a bit silly, which is what I was pointing out.
Aside from that fact, how about discussing ideas rather than pedantic back and forths over he said she said? Not interested in that kind of discussion