definitely not successful because they are smart.

I mean, "smart" is a relative term. They were smart enough to find the money hose and latch onto it. But the skills necessary to schmooze $250M out of a creditor are fundamentally different than the skills necessary to manage a workforce or meet the terms of the contract.

You can call it the Peter Principle or the Principle-Agent Problem or any number of other business short-hands for "skills mismatch". The bottom line is that "meritocracy" in a capitalist system boils down to rent-seeking effectiveness. That's the skill set that is rewarded. And it produces legions of people who train and compete for the opportunity to maximize rent-seeking returns.

This guy fumbled the ball in a spectacular fashion. But I have no doubt he'll get back on his horse and find another pool of labor to extract wealth from. Because, if he's a CEO, he's honed the skills needed to do exactly that.

What we get to mock him for is his failure, not his decision. If he'd retrieved a useful answer from the ChatGPT answer lottery, or the courts had been stacked with his friends such that any answer he pulled was considered the right one, he'd be hailed as a business genius on the front page of the WSJ rather than scoffed at in the back pages of 404media.