Image via PEOPLE Magazine
***
In 2014, Elizabeth Holmes was recognized by Forbes as the world’s youngest self-made billionaire at age 30. Her company, Theranos, was a blood testing startup that claimed to revolutionize healthcare by creating a machine capable of performing hundreds of medical tests from a single finger prick, using only a couple of drops of blood rather than traditional blood work. Her estimated net worth rose to $4.5 billion, attracting prominent investors such as the Walton Family, Larry Ellison, and Rupert Murdoch. At 19, before founding her company, she dropped out of Stanford University and quickly became integrated into Silicon Valley culture. Throughout her career, she was frequently compared to Steve Jobs, even sporting his iconic black turtleneck. She was celebrated for embodying ambition and demonstrating that extraordinary wealth was attainable through individual ingenuity. However, a few years later, Theranos collapsed when its “revolutionary” technology was shown to be unreliable, and the company’s claims were exposed as fraudulent.
Holmes was convicted of defrauding investors, and the billions of dollars that had once symbolized her success vanished. While the scandal is usually presented as a cautionary tale about dishonesty, the Holmes scandal reveals something broader about the American economic system: why was a woman whose company repeatedly failed to deliver on its promises celebrated as one of the most innovative entrepreneurs? While extreme wealth is often celebrated as evidence of individual intelligence, hard work, and innovation, financial success can also be driven by speculation and influential social networks. The Theranos scandal highlights how American society mistakes the accumulation of wealth for genuine achievement while also revealing the mechanisms by which wealth and economic power are created. This raises a broader question about the meritocracy on which our economic system supposedly functions.
Meritocracy is a political, social, or economic system in which individuals are assigned to positions of power, influence, or reward solely on the basis of their abilities and achievements and not on the basis of their social, cultural, or economic background or irrelevant personal characteristics. This concept aligns with the American Dream, which holds that, regardless of class, race, or social origin, any American can achieve upward mobility and material prosperity through hard work and determination. While the ideals associated with this concept can be traced to the Declaration of Independence, the term was coined in the 1930’s by James Truslow Adams in his book The Epic of America, which described America as a land where individual ability enables a better, richer life.
Throughout the 20th century, this sentiment shifted into an individualistic pursuit of wealth and consumer goods. In turn, the ideal of becoming an entrepreneur encouraged people to view themselves as self-made creators of wealth. This mindset is especially prominent in Silicon Valley, one of the world’s largest centers of high-tech innovation, located in San Francisco, California. Figures such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg emerged from Silicon Valley, marking it as one of the major hubs for innovation and entrepreneurship.
Holmes fits perfectly into this narrative. When she dropped out of Stanford during her sophomore year of undergrad to pursue her business idea, she embodied the archetypal entrepreneur: someone willing to risk everything to pursue a particular vision. Although she cultivated an image of success, her company was struggling internally. Her accumulation of wealth, however, suggested otherwise, showing how wealth in America is often treated as proof of merit, even when the accomplishments that justify it have yet to materialize. Under meritocracy, individuals are theoretically rewarded for their abilities, contributions, and accomplishments.
In Holmes’s case, the reward preceded the accomplishment. If meritocracy supposedly rewards achievement, why was Holmes rewarded for the promise of achievement? This highlights the hypocrisy of the American Dream, which promotes the idea that wealth is earned through merit demonstrated by objective results. In practice, however, the economic system rewards market expectations, access to capital, and investor confidence independently of demonstrated productive achievement.
One of the major issues that arose with the rise and fall of Theranos was how much speculative investment enabled ginormous financial valuations before the company could even prove its product was working properly. These investments often came from venture capital firms, which pool money from institutional investors and high-net-worth individuals, known as limited partners, to purchase equity in high-growth startups. They finance based on future growth expectations rather than a company’s current earnings. As a result, the distribution of capital becomes increasingly dependent on investors’ expectations of future profitability rather than on a company’s actual achievements, raising questions about whether financial success truly reflects merit.
At its peak in 2015, Theranos’s estimated valuation reached nearly $9 billion, while the company’s actual revenue in the previous year was about $400k. This disparity created a misleading impression of meaningful economic achievement. While it is normal for new companies to generate little revenue in their early stages, Theranos’s valuation was supported by materially false claims about its technological capabilities and commercial prospects. This distinction reveals an important discrepancy between the anticipated financial value and the actual productive economic value. As the company’s valuation increased, so did Holmes’ wealth, establishing her as a legitimate player in the biotechnology industry.
When this financial success failed to produce substantive achievements, she accumulated capital while creating the appearance of economic success without necessarily producing anything of genuine value. While the practice of valuing companies based on future expectations isn’t inherently problematic, it becomes dangerous when expectations of future innovation are mistaken for evidence of existing success. Theranos exemplified this danger. The company attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in investment while Holmes and other executives misrepresented its technological capabilities and financial prospects. Investors were not simply financing an uncertain medical innovation; they were financing a company whose leadership had deliberately misled them about the extent of its achievements. This reveals a broader contradiction within American capitalism: financial markets can generate extraordinary wealth based on expectations of future value, even when the underlying economic contributions have yet to materialize.
Additionally, media coverage of Holmes helped reinforce a capitalist understanding of what financial success looks like for the American public, relying on the assumption that wealth equates to individual ingenuity and hard work. As mentioned previously, Holmes appeared in prominent financial publications, such as Forbes and Fortune. Her portrayal as a young female entrepreneur also reinforced this narrative of success. As a woman entering a male-dominated field, she was presented as someone who had overcome barriers and achieved the American Dream. Her carefully cultivated image contributed to this perception: her signature black turtlenecks and decision to drop out of Stanford invited comparisons to other technology billionaires like Steve Jobs.
This coverage praised Holmes’ growing fortune and legitimized her place in the field, even as her company’s scientific claims remained insufficiently scrutinized. As Theranos’s valuation increased, Holmes’s growing fortune further legitimized her reputation, creating a cycle in which financial success was treated as evidence of entrepreneurial merit. This positive media attention not only reinforced Holmes’s public image but also contributed to Theranos’s credibility among potential investors. It demonstrated how the perception of success can translate into greater access to capital and economic opportunities, even when the achievements used to justify that success remain unproven. However, it was this same type of coverage and journalism that revealed her facade. In 2015, The Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou exposed serious problems with Theranos’s blood-testing technology, revealing the disconnect between Holmes’s public image and the company’s actual capabilities. The scandal demonstrates how media coverage can reinforce the mythology of the self-made billionaire by treating wealth as proof of achievement rather than as a claim deserving critical examination.
Ultimately, the rise and fall of Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes reveal a much larger issue within American capitalism than just dishonesty alone. Theranos illustrates how wealth can become disconnected from genuine economic achievement, as investors and the media contribute to this perception of success before it is materially realized. While the American Dream promotes the idea that hard work leads to merit and prosperity, Holmes’ story challenges this notion by showing how external factors, such as financial valuations and investor confidence, can be rewarded over genuine accomplishments. The scandal raises a broader question about America’s current economic system: If wealth can be accumulated without producing the economic value that justifies it, to what extent can financial success truly be considered a reflection of merit?
***
This article was edited by Karol Quinde and Emmerson Oskay.
Samantha Kornsey 
Matthew Subramani 
Jackson Cutrone