⛵Dhow Dispatch │ 4 Failed Startups - What You Can Learn from Them as an Investor

Founded: 2018
Founders: Jeffrey Katzenberg, Meg Whitman
Sector: Mobile streaming
Funding Raised: ~$1.75B (Peak valuation (Implied): $1.75B)
Outcome: Shut down six months after launch in 2020

What They Tried to Build - Quibi set out to build a new category of entertainment: premium, short-form video designed exclusively for mobile viewing with episodes that were typically under ten minutes and were optimized for watching on the go. The concept itself was fairly simple: combine Hollywood production quality with the convenience of shorter-form, mobile-first content.

Why Investors Believed - The company launched with nearly $2 billion in capital and backing from nearly every major Hollywood studio; simultaneously, the founders had significant credibility. Katzenberg brought decades of Hollywood leadership, having co-founded DreamWorks Animation and previously served as chairman of Walt Disney Studios, where he oversaw major hits and helped shape Disney’s modern animation business. Whitman, meanwhile, was known for scaling technology companies, having led eBay through its hypergrowth years and later serving as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, where she managed one of the largest enterprise technology turnarounds in Silicon Valley. Together, the pairing signaled to investors a rare blend of media industry expertise and large-scale technology execution. Investors also believed in the broader trend: mobile consumption was exploding and streaming platforms were reshaping media. The general assumption was that short-form premium content would become the next evolution of entertainment.

Where It Broke - The core assumption proved wrong from the start. Consumers already had free short-form content through YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. Quibi attempted to charge a subscription for something the market had already perceived as abundant. The product launched at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when lockdowns dramatically reduced commuting and travel, undermining Quibi’s core premise of short, mobile-first content designed for viewing on the go. With consumers spending more time at home and already turning to established streaming platforms, Quibi struggled to gain traction and ultimately failed to achieve product-market fit despite its massive funding and celebrity-backed content slate.

Investor Lesson - Capital cannot manufacture demand. Even with elite founders, premium content, and nearly unlimited funding, Quibi failed because it solved a problem consumers did not actually have. Product-market fit remains the single most important variable in venture outcomes. The biggest risk in consumer startups is often substitution, not competition. Quibi wasn’t competing with Netflix; it was competing with TikTok and YouTube, where short-form video was already free and deeply embedded in user behavior.

Founded: 2019
Founders: Domm Holland
Sector: Fintech / E-commerce Checkout
Funding Raised: ~$120M (Peak valuation: $600M after Series B in 2021)
Outcome: Shut down in 2022 after running out of capital

What They Tried to Build - Fast aimed to build a universal one-click checkout for the internet. Rather than entering payment and shipping details on every website, users could complete purchases instantly using a single Fast account. The vision was to replicate Amazon’s “one-click checkout” experience across the entire web, allowing independent merchants to offer the same frictionless purchasing experience as large platforms.

Why Investors Believed - Fast targeted a well-known friction point in e-commerce: checkout. Cart abandonment rates regularly exceed 60-70%, making even small improvements in checkout conversion extremely valuable for merchants. At the same time, the success of fintech infrastructure companies like Stripe and Plaid had convinced investors that developer-friendly payment tools could scale quickly, creating a narrative that checkout itself could become the next layer of the payments stack. Early traction appeared to reinforce that thesis, with Fast reporting rapid merchant signups and growing user adoption, positioning its one-click checkout as a simple way for independent retailers to replicate the seamless purchasing experience pioneered by Amazon. Founder Domm Holland, a repeat entrepreneur who previously founded Tow.com before its acquisition by Quinstreet, also helped build investor confidence that the company could execute at speed. Together, the high-powered combination of a large market problem, strong early growth metrics, and founder credibility helped Fast raise more than $120 million from prominent venture investors in just a few short years.

Where It Broke - Fast’s growth story proved difficult to sustain once investors began examining the underlying economics. The company spent aggressively on hiring and marketing while struggling to generate meaningful revenue from merchants. At the same time, several of the headline metrics that helped fuel its fundraising began to unravel. Fast had publicly suggested it was gaining rapid adoption among merchants and consumers, but later reporting indicated the number of active merchants was far smaller than investors initially believed. User growth also appeared inflated. Internal estimates suggested only a small fraction of reported user accounts were actively completing purchases through Fast’s checkout system. Meanwhile, the company had built a cost structure designed for hypergrowth, with hundreds of employees and significant operating expenses despite limited revenue. Early warning signs began appearing in late 2021; hiring had slowed, key executives departed, and the company reportedly struggled to raise additional capital. As investor scrutiny increased and funding conditions tightened, Fast ran out of runway and shut down in April 2022, with about 450 employees still on payroll. In hindsight, the company’s growth narrative had outpaced the underlying business fundamentals.

Investor Lesson - Growth metrics can hide broken economics. When a startup prioritizes top-line growth before validating how value flows through the system, it can create the illusion of traction while the underlying business model remains fragile. In early-stage deals, separate activity metrics from economic metrics. Merchant signups, users, and product integrations can grow quickly, but only transactions and revenue prove real adoption.

Founded: 2012
Founders: Sean Lane
Sector: Healthcare Automation / AI
Funding Raised: ~$900M (Peak valuation: ~$4B in 2021)
Outcome: Wound down core operations in 2023

What They Tried to Build - Olive AI set out to automate the administrative side of healthcare. The company developed software “digital workers” designed to interact with hospital systems and perform repetitive back-office tasks such as insurance verification, billing processing, and prior authorization workflows. The vision was straightforward: instead of replacing hospital software, Olive would sit on top of existing systems and automate manual processes that consumed thousands of staff hours across healthcare organizations.

Why Investors Believed - Olive’s pitch targeted one of the largest inefficiencies in healthcare. Administrative work accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars in annual spending across the U.S. healthcare system, creating a massive theoretical opportunity for automation. Founder Sean Lane helped reinforce that narrative. Before founding Olive in 2012, Lane had worked closely with healthcare providers and saw firsthand how much time hospital staff spent navigating fragmented software systems for tasks like insurance verification, billing reconciliation, and prior authorizations. His thesis was that much of this repetitive work could be automated without forcing hospitals to replace their existing software. Olive’s product attempted to do exactly that. Instead of integrating deeply into hospital systems, the company deployed software “digital workers” that mimicked how human staff interacted with applications. These bots logged into hospital software, pulled information from multiple systems, completed forms, and executed administrative tasks automatically. The approach resembled robotic process automation (RPA), but Olive marketed it as a more intelligent automation platform capable of learning and scaling across healthcare workflows. Early traction reinforced the narrative. Olive signed contracts with large health systems and expanded its automation across billing, revenue cycle management, and administrative workflows. Combined with the broader excitement around AI-driven automation, this helped the company raise nearly $900 million from major venture investors and reach a reported valuation of roughly $4 billion by 2021.

Where It Broke - Healthcare workflows proved significantly harder to automate than early narratives suggested. Many of Olive’s deployments required heavy customization to work within hospital systems, which are often fragmented and built on decades-old software infrastructure. Instead of scaling like traditional SaaS, many implementations began to resemble consulting engagements requiring ongoing human support, even as Olive expanded aggressively through acquisitions, rapid headcount growth, and a broader platform strategy before its core product economics were fully proven. As growth slowed and operating costs increased, the company began layoffs and sold off several acquired businesses. Customer deployments proved difficult to scale consistently, and the company struggled to convert its automation pilots into durable, repeatable revenue across health systems. In October 2023, Olive announced it would wind down core operations and sell remaining assets.

Investor Lesson - Olive struggled because its product required heavy customization to work inside each hospital environment, turning many deployments into consulting engagements rather than repeatable software. When automation depends on workflows that vary widely across customers, scalability breaks down and the economics start to resemble services instead of SaaS. Investors should focus on repeatability early by figuring out how many deployments run with minimal customization and whether the product works consistently across different customer environments before assuming the model can scale.

Founded: 2010
Founders: Adam Neumann, Miguel McKelvey
Sector: Coworking / real estate platform
Funding Raised: ~$22B (Peak valuation: ~$47B in 2019)
Outcome: IPO collapse in 2019; WeWork filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2023

What They Tried to Build - WeWork set out to redefine the modern workplace. The company leased large commercial real estate spaces, redesigned them into flexible offices, and rented them out to startups, freelancers, and enterprises on short-term memberships. The vision was larger than coworking; instead, WeWork positioned itself as a technology platform for work, arguing that community-driven office spaces and flexible leasing could transform how companies approached real estate.

Why Investors Believed - The company grew rapidly during the 2010s startup boom, expanding from a single New York location to hundreds of locations across dozens of countries. Founder Adam Neumann played a central role in shaping the narrative. Charismatic and ambitious, he framed WeWork as a global platform rather than a real estate business, emphasizing community, network effects, and technology-enabled workspace management. Growth metrics appeared to support the story. Membership expanded quickly, revenue rose from roughly $436 million in 2016 to more than $1.8 billion by 2018, and the company secured billions in capital from major venture investors. The most influential backer was SoftBank, whose Vision Fund invested heavily in the company and helped drive WeWork’s private valuation to roughly $47 billion by early 2019.

Where It Broke - WeWork’s business model carried structural risks that became clear as the company prepared for its IPO. The company signed long-term leases for office space while offering customers short-term memberships, exposing it to significant downside if occupancy fell. At the same time, the company was losing billions of dollars annually as it expanded aggressively into new markets. The 2019 IPO filing also revealed governance concerns. Adam Neumann maintained outsized control through a dual-class share structure, engaged in related-party transactions with the company, and promoted a narrative that framed WeWork as a technology company rather than a real estate operator. Once public market investors examined the company’s financials and governance structure, confidence deteriorated rapidly. The IPO was withdrawn, Neumann stepped down as CEO, and SoftBank ultimately orchestrated a bailout to stabilize the company. Over the following years, WeWork struggled with high fixed costs and declining demand for office space. In November 2023, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Investor Lesson - Narratives can drive valuations, but governance and business fundamentals ultimately determine outcomes. When founders maintain outsized control and capital flows faster than operational discipline, risk compounds quietly. Investors should pay close attention to governance structures, unit economics, and how a company would perform in a less favorable capital environment before assuming growth alone will justify valuation.

Across Quibi, Fast, Olive AI, and WeWork, the failures look different on the surface, but the underlying pattern is quite familiar: capital amplified weaknesses that were already present in the model. In Quibi’s case, the product never aligned with user behavior. In Fast’s case, growth metrics outpaced real economic value. In Olive’s case, customization undermined software scalability. In WeWork’s case, narrative and governance stretched far beyond business fundamentals.

That’s the core investing lesson. Venture doesn’t just reward upside; it also punishes unexamined assumptions. The right question is rarely “could this get big?”; rather, it’s more often “what has to be true for this to scale cleanly, and do we have evidence that those conditions already exist?”

For investors, that means underwriting a few things with more discipline. Is product-market fit real, or is capital subsidizing demand? Are growth metrics tied to transactions and revenue, or just activity? Does the product become more repeatable as it scales, or more customized? And if the company hits a harder funding environment, do governance and unit economics still hold up?

The takeaway isn’t to avoid ambitious companies. It’s to get much sharper about what kind of ambition you are funding. The best venture outcomes come from businesses where scale reinforces the model. The worst ones come from businesses where scale exposes what was fragile all along.

Startup failures rarely come from a single mistake. More often, they happen when growth and capital accelerate faster than the underlying business model can support. Quibi misread consumer behavior, Fast mistook activity for real adoption, Olive AI struggled to turn automation into repeatable software, and WeWork allowed governance and capital discipline to drift as its valuation soared.

The pattern is deceptively simple. The most dangerous risk in venture is scaling a fragile assumption before anyone realizes it is fragile. The best startups compound their advantages with scale, while the worst ones compound their flaws.

Want us to dig into the drivers of other startups failures? Just reply “Deep Dive” + Failure


At Dhow, we believe great investing comes from studying both the winners and the failures. Venture outcomes often look unpredictable from the outside, but patterns appear when you examine what actually broke. Product-market fit that never materialized. Growth metrics that masked weak economics. Software that couldn’t scale beyond custom deployments. Governance that drifted as capital flooded in. Each story looks different, but the underlying lesson is the same: durable companies compound advantages as they grow, while fragile ones compound risk. Join the movement and share this with a friend (or two).

Manual tax processes drain your team's time and energy, leaving no time for analysis.

When you automate and centralize your tax data your team can access what they need, when they need it and confidently make decisions.

The best part? Your team gets time back to focus on strategic initiatives.

Download the paper

While many businesses are solving problems at lightspeed, their payroll systems seem to stay stuck in the past. Deel's free Payroll Toolkit shows you what's actually changing in payroll this year, which problems hit first, and how to fix them before they cost you. Because new compliance rules, AI automation, and multi-country remote teams are all colliding at once.

Check out the free Deel Payroll Toolkit today and get a step-by-step roadmap to modernize operations, reduce manual work, and build a payroll strategy that scales with confidence.

Download the Toolkit for free today

If you enjoyed this, you’d be doing us a HUGE FAVOR by just clicking the ad above - we appreciate it!

Sources