Comment by cixin

I'd love to have more insight into how this happened.

It seems like there's a pattern of high profile failures of highly funded science-based startups.

From the outside the science seems faulty from the start, the management team seems to have no strong scientific background.

Do investors really fund purely based on their force of personality? Personal connections? Do they see a big market and then ignore the scientific DD?

I'd love to understand this better.