I would say Srinivasan is particularly egregious. Regardless of how you feel about bitcoin, and even among many bitcoin enthusiasts, the economics of the 21 bitcoin computer were clearly absurd from the outset, yet Srinivasan still managed to fleece million of dollars from investors using buzzwords and guile. I think he is fundamentally untrustworthy and a terrible choice for the head of a government agency.

That's not grounds for writing someone off, but it's not always a positive thing either. I would fail miserably at running a marathon, but I don't think that gives me any insight into running marathons. Going someplace where everyone fails and (surprise!) failing might also just as easily be a sign of poor judgement as the failing itself, depending on the circumstances. Tons of rich kids who can afford to fail come here and attempt it just because for them, failure has minimal consequences, and they figure they'll either win the startup lottery or give up in a few years, and worst-case they will have spent a few post-college years having fun working with their buddies and delaying getting a "real" job (in their view). Other people might get much more out of their failed startup experience, but there's just a really wide range of who does it for what reasons, and what they get out of the experience.

> we should write off the leaders of all the other failed entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley as well?

For running government agencies? Yes. Such risk-taking does not belong there.

For a public leadership role I would prefer someone who has a solid track record of success. It's one thing you burn VC money but running the FDA requires a different mindset.

Startups =\= Government

Well, when you put it like that, yes, all of them.

There's a difference between giving an honest try and failing, and coming up with THIS:

https://www.amazon.com/21-INC-21BC1-Bitcoin-Computer/dp/B014...

(Yes, that IS a Raspberry Pi that they're selling for $150)