Oct 22, 2026 · 1h 41m
VCs debate whether Silicon Valley would fund Elizabeth Holmes again
We asked 3 VCs: would you invest in Elizabeth Holmes’ next startup? | E2353
The discussion tests whether venture capital can separate genuine redemption from charisma, reputation, and the trust networks that repeatedly weaken diligence.
- 1Investors debate whether a working product could outweigh Elizabeth Holmes’s criminal record and the difficulty of sustaining trust with her.
- 2The panel argues that referrals, prestigious co-investors, and founder-friendly rhetoric can obscure warning signs rather than replace independent diligence.
- 3Pro rata rights and AI voice licensing expose how financing and identity rules lag behind the power of investors, founders, and platforms.
Don't miss
The panel confronts whether it would take Elizabeth Holmes’s meeting or invest in a hypothetical company with a working product after her prison sentence.
The brief
Jason Calacanis, Sam Lessin, Jenny Fielding, and Paige Doherty use Elizabeth Holmes and You Can See Everything to examine how charisma turns uncertainty into conviction.
The panel’s Holmes debate asks whether a working product could overcome fraud, prison, and damaged trust, distinguishing extreme ambition from deception without pretending diligence can catch everything.
FTX becomes the cautionary counterexample: prestigious investors and co-investors reinforced collective confidence, showing how trust networks can produce collective diligence failure.
The conversation broadens to pro rata rights and founder-friendly financing, arguing that fair terms must be settled early rather than reshaped by later financing pressure.
An ElevenLabs voice-cloning dispute brings the same trust problem into identity rights, as the panel weighs publicity law, NIL, licensing, and compensation for recognizable voices.
What was said on this episode
17 statements · 5 positive · 7 negative · 1 mixed · 4 neutral
Prediction markets can disseminate information about the world.
“there should be a market in everything because that's actually how you can pump information through the world, understand what's going on”
Listen at 6:06
Sam’s fund experiences approximately a 1% fraud rate.
“I think we probably run about a 1% oops, it was fraud rate at our fund.”
Listen at 30:48
Due-diligence intensity should scale with investment check size.
“I think it scales with the size of check”
Listen at 31:50
Larger venture checks require substantially more due diligence.
“you can't afford that much due diligence if you're writing a $100,000 check. Correct. If you're writing a $100 million check or a billion dollar check, you can't afford to not do it.”
Listen at 32:01
Jenny overlooked reference checks because of strong founder conviction.
“I did not do enough reference checks on this person because I had such a great kind of like chemistry with him and just like I really wanted to believe.”
Listen at 35:26
Trusted co-investors caused Sam’s fund to rely on their diligence.
“the diligence was we love these people. They think this founder is great. They're doing it. And like, we're sidecarrying it and coming along for the ride, drafting on their diligence.”
Listen at 37:33
Sam predicts a16z will not fund Elizabeth Holmes’s next company.
“Adam Neumann, can his next company get funded by a16z? That's not going to happen for Elizabeth Holmes is my bet.”
Listen at 54:34
Sam might trade Holmes’s company but would not hold it long term.
“as a capitalist, I might have to take the trade and the risk on the trade, but I would not be a holder of it.”
Listen at 55:41
Jason predicts Elizabeth Holmes will solve a real problem after prison.
“she's gonna actually solve a real problem in the world.”
Listen at 1:02:19
Jenny predicts Holmes will not have a working prototype within five years.
“I'll take the under on it.”
Listen at 1:02:29
Seed investors should secure durable, unconditional pro rata rights.
“these docs have pro rata rights in them, right? They're not pro rata rights contingent on other people. They're not pro rata rights that kind of die after a round, they're pro rata rights.”
Listen at 1:04:23
Seed venture funds cannot operate successfully without pro rata rights.
“the seed business model doesn't work without pro rata rights.”
Listen at 1:04:42
Sam considers pro rata rights essential and will defend them indefinitely.
“for me, they're completely ironclad and important, and I will fight for them forever.”
Listen at 1:06:40
Founder-friendly norms correlate with the amount of capital entering markets.
“they correlate with how much money is flooding into, you know, the market”
Listen at 1:08:58
Courts have not clearly resolved AI voice-rights questions.
“I don't think we have a clear answer from the courts, to tell you the truth.”
Listen at 1:23:24
Publicity rights prohibit using Jason’s identity to sell products without permission.
“the right of publicity means you can't use me to sell your thing.”
Listen at 1:25:04
Obliteration provides constrained LLM hosting for high-risk industries.
“It is for high-risk industries, LLMs for high-risk industries. The AI is going to do what you allow it to do. You set the rules, you set the constraints.”
Listen at 1:39:16
Statements are attributed to the speaker as said on the episode and reflect their view at the time, not PodLume's. They are not advice.
Books & mentions
Some links are affiliate links — PodLume may earn a commission if you buy.
Weekly email
State of the Pod, every Monday
The week's most-discussed names and stories from podcasts, with the moments behind them. Free, five minutes, unsubscribe in one click.