I'm genuinely curious. Let's say things had turned out slightly different, he'd been able to negotiate the deals with the banks that he needed (let's say he had a Board Member who helped open a few doors, or perhaps a Sr. Executive who had deep experience with the banking industry/regulations, and could expedite) - and let's say that clinkle had taken off, and was generated sufficient revenue to be a $10B company. Would you still blame the investors, or would you be impressed by their willingness to take risk?

From the New Yorker article on Marc:

Each year, three thousand startups approach a16z with a “warm intro” from someone the firm knows. A16z invests in fifteen. Of those, at least ten will fold, three or four will prosper, and one might soar to be worth more than a billion dollars—a “unicorn,” in the local parlance. With great luck, once a decade that unicorn will become a Google or a Facebook and return the V.C.’s money a thousand times over: the storied 1,000x.

A16Z invests in 15 companies/year, knowing ahead of time that ten of them will fold. Being able to predict the future is hard.