It's worth remembering that Vision Fund's apparent thesis wasn't just to have a many-losers-compensated-by-a-big-winner portfolio like most VC funds, but that they would pick winners by sheer scale of their checks. That should imply a smaller shares of outright failures (if Uber, Wework et al can even be called that, which I'm not sure) Unfortunately to test said thesis they HAD to raise that much money (maybe half was enough, but then again, if they could raise 100Bn, why not?) and HAD to burn it like they did. Apparently the result is that scale alone can't bring the kind of outsized returns VCs rely on, even if they do end up creating juggernauts. But to learn that, someone had to try.