23andMe

Mick Tator

I’ve written here before about 23andme and its troubles. These have now taken a further step, with the company’s seven independent directors stepping down, a move that is a protest at the way the company is being run. For some time it has been ‘rudderless’ due to indecision/differences of opinion on strategy. These resignations will enable it to go down the ‘medical research’ route fully, rather than genealogy. Key shareholder ego is largely to blame IMO.

https://investors.23andme.com/news-releases/news-release-details/independent-directors-23andme-resign-board?fbclid=IwY2xjawFYuIVleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHTF1aViBE5Fq0fxMTiOzrSFxLIEeZ60VmQ34rNW6-nqgNLZR6Yq4ih723Q_aem_Eq8iUbmUlrg59QMihFip6w

pinkypinky

Yeah, I requested a download of my aunt's raw data but it hasn't come through yet. Will have to root around and see if I have a previous copy. I'm tested there myself too but am in all the databases, so if they go bust, I'm not too concerned about my own kit.

Mick Tator

I cannot see then ‘going bust’, but the company will change considerably henceforth. I fully agree it would be a good idea to get a data dump of test results. The co-founder, key shareholder and CEO is Anne Wojcicki, ex-wife of Sergei Brin, co-founder of Google, so cash is not an issue (even though 98% of her investment has disappeard!). The core asset is about 10 million DNA tests, a sizeable database. There are other shareholders, and a chunk of equity is on the stock market. Her background is biomedical research, her stated purpose when the business launched was to use customers’ DNA to work on disease research and develop new medical products, hence the partnership with GlaxoSmithKline some years ago. Genealogy always was a side-gig, it became a medical company.

23andme was less than clear about data use, and came across as arrogant in their approach, hence my reluctance to test with them despite having a high number of matches there. When they eventually owned up to a cyber attack & serious data breach, their IT management systems and their crisis management were shown to be seriously flawed. No doubt other shareholders (VCs, ETF's, etc. )saw this and put on pressur. The fact that all 7 non-exec directors have ‘walked’ is a serious blow to image and how she is running the business. She's trying to buy out the others at a bargain basement price. I’d bet there will be some interesting legal actions in the pipeline!

Mick Tator

Update -

Over the last couple of weeks 23andMe has made almost a dozen SEC filings that indicate it, through a bit of financial jiggery-pokery with its share structure, has scraped through the minimum standards to maintain its listing on Nasdaq. The news was contained in 23’s rather bland press release, and it has not made any further comment.

The outlook IMO remains very negative, with a reported 34% decrease in Q1 2024 turnover, dropping to $40 million, primarily due to the termination of the GSK partnership. Its net loss was $69 million compared to the previous year's $105 million, so it’s still burning cash.

23 still sees genetic testing for health risks as the way forward – it’s banking on subsidiary Lemonaid Health which introduced a new monthly subscription weight loss program. IMO that indicates a very challenging future for the company.

It has not been profitable over the last twelve months, and revenue for Q1 2024 was $199.19 million, down one third over the same period last year. This decline, coupled with a negative operating income ( -128.25%)!!, highlights the challenges it faces to survive. It does have plenty of cash which will provide some more time and flexibility to improve but that will burn quickly.

The firm was worth $6 billion in a couple of years ago and is now worth $125.83 million, (yes, a drop of 98%!) Download your records.

Mick Tator

If you have tested with 23andMe you should review the consents you have signed- read below.

After the independent directors walked out last autumn, their replacements set up a committee to review strategic alternatives. It announced last week it is exploring options, including a sale, a merger, the sale of all or part of the assets, licensing its assets, or ‘other strategic actions’. The company now describes itself as a “human genetics company with a mission to help people access, understand, and benefit from the human genome” A recent ‘launch’ gave premium customers a diagnosis of susceptibility to osteoporosis.

As 23’s assets include its database, you should think about what they might/will do with your DNA results and review your consents. Since my last post the share price has halved, dropping by 45% (and since 2020 it has dropped from almpst $300.00 to this week’s level of $2.60

pinkypinky

In a surprising move, they are also exhibiting at Rootstech next month, for the first time in many years. People will be approaching them directly at it I'm sure.

Mick Tator

Participation at Rootstech is part of their fight for existence. They have to sell new kits for cashflow. Their business model depends on income from sharing data with ‘Big Pharma’ hence the gig with GSK (now dead, and unreplaced). It is not about ‘DNA’ or genealogy as we here understand, it’s medical genetics. The problem they face is their customers make a single purchase and rarely return, unlike say FTDNA who can cross-sell different products to the same customer (e.g. a Y-DNA to an autosomal or a Y-67 to Big Y upgrade; or like Ancestry & MyHeritage with their annual subscription services for their databases. IMO 23 has conflated interest in DNA for heritage/genealogy with an interest in genetic disorder/disease. A basic error, and they are still digging.

As I’ve posted elsewhere on this forum, we are reaching peak ‘DNA kit’ genealogy and the ‘big rush’ is over; that is why we are seeing firms like Ancestry ‘sweating’ their existing customers by turning off features that were free and now making us pay for them.

silliussoddius

As I’ve posted elsewhere on this forum, we are reaching peak ‘DNA kit’ genealogy and the ‘big rush’ is over;

Yeah. Genetic testing companies, to me, seem a bit like streaming companies such as Netflix. The kind of thing that a lot of people will sign up for in large numbers at the start, but new users/cash flows will then plateau.

Mick Tator

Who said genealogy was boring?!! More fun and games over at 23andMe.😁

At the time of my last post about a month ago, their shares hovered between $2.50 and $2.90. A board committee was trying to find a buyer for the business and the founder-director Anne Wojcicki with a venture capital backer offered $2.53 a share, valuing the co at about $75 million (remember it was worth $6 billion four years ago!). The board rejected that offer, the VC company walked and the bold Anne has returned with another offer of – wait for it – 41cents a share. Seeing that she already owns almost half of the company (49%) and has ‘packed’ the board with her appointees, there is clear conflict of interest here. The minority shareholders will be royally screwed if she gets her way. She’s a Silicon Valley insider, ex-wife of Sergey Brin (Google cofounder) and sister of the late longtime head of YouTube. These with Elon are the people backing Trump’s America, where ethics and morality are gone, like the money-laundering regulations that were thrown out the window last week. The shares are now down to $1.47

Jellybaby_1

Would other genealogical sites feel threatened by this do you think?

Mick Tator

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123231805#Comment_123231805

No, Jelly, for several reasons.

Firstly, 23andMe is not a genealogy company, it is a medical research company selling a ‘genealogy’ product (a DNA kit) useful to family historians. Flog them a kit, use their data for drug development. That did not work (e.g. a failed JV with GlaxoSmithKline who bailed, their stagnant Lemonaid project, etc). That is one reason for its present predicament. Its shares closed down at $1.37 today

Secondly, the ‘other’ genealogy companies are not in the business for medical research and have different business models – e.g Ancestry is owned by a giant ‘fund’ called Blackstone who bought it because it was a genealogy company, with a few million subscribers, a huge database, a newspaper archive partnerships and a zillion family trees freely accessible online (OK, many are rubbish, but no need to announce that up front!) Its DNA business is an add-on, part of a genealogy offering, period. Next is MyHeritage, owned by Francisco Partners, a San Francisco-based global investment firm that specializes in tech . Despite that ‘front’ it primarily is an Israeli company and operates from Tel Aviv. It too is like Ancestry, but its backers / management / location make many suspicious of its potential links with State authorities. Findmypast is owned by a Scottish publishing company (newspapers and the ‘Beano’), DC Thomson, a family-owned business and around since the 1800’s. Again the focus is on pure genealogy/records.

So, 23andMe is an outlier, owned and run by a (highly qualified) exceedingly rich person with a vision, a large ego and s desire to get her own way at whatever cost to others. Her disdain for the customer is well signalled by several past events.She owns almost half the company, so it will be a protracted affair. Were there more shares freely available a company like Ancestry would snap it up in a second for its database.

pinkypinky

I doubt Ancestry would be allowed snap up the shares - I expect anti-monopoly laws would kick in.

Jellybaby_1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123232576#Comment_123232576

Many thanks for explaining, very clear and interesting information. We have far too many very rich, arrogant bullies in the world. I'm so glad I don't have anything to do with 23andme.

Mick Tator

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123234324#Comment_123234324

There is anti-monopoly - anti-trust in the US - and governed by the Sherman Act. Anne W owns 49% so it is unlikely that Ancestry's owners could build a meaningful stake. I cannot see her surrendering, if she tried to take the company private there would be all sorts of legal actions against her, so unless there was some kind of a negotiated settlement it's not really a runner. The Sherman Act is IMO more concerned with pricefixing and even so, given the current climate in the US, it is very likely that neither the Fair Trade Commission nor the Dept. of Justice's Antitrust Division who manage this could be ar$ed about doing anything. (I don't know what DOGE has done to them!) Think Amazon - it has almost half of the on-line market in the US, other retailers have been banging on about monopoly, restrictrive practices, for more than a decade and the most recent lawcase filed against Amazon in 2023 has still gone nowhere. I'm drifting away from geno, but the outcome of the 23 debacle is important to the sector.

Mick Tator

So, it finally happened! 23andMe today filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, followed by the resignation of CEO (and key shareholder) Anne Wojcicki. The share price had halved when the markets opened, so down almost two thirds from last weeks' 'high'.

Chapter 11 is somewhat like ‘Administration’ in Irish Law, meaning the company is under court protection and cannot be sued by its creditors while its sale/survival is being investigated.

Anne W. will no doubt try to buy it at a knockdown price again, her previous efforts were dismissed. Under the customer agreement signed by existing customers, any purchaser will obtain the existing database of kits unless the individuals who tested ask for their results to be deleted and their kit to be destroyed.

In plain terms, were I a customer I would long ago have downloaded my results and asked the company to delete my records.

pinkypinky

For a different take, see Blaine Bettinger's post in the Facebook group Genetic Genealogy tips & tricks.

Mick Tator

Indeed it is another view. Blair Bettinger might be renowned for his DNA prowess, but I certainly would not rely on his credentials for advice on corporate governance or insolvency. Some of what he says is correct (particularly on ‘scaremongering’), but his comment ‘Anne Wojcicki has resigned (to be in the running to pursue the company as an independent bidder)?” is both incorrect and ill-informed – she resigned as CEO, not as a board member. As a 49% owner she doubtlessly will try to buy the company. And probably will be the successful bidder/buyer, with a 49% headstart.

My earlier posts above give ample proof that - at the most basic level - 23andMe under Anne W has been a trainwreck for several years. Were it a European company, under EU law the historic antics, customer treatment and data breaches of 23 would be followed by huge fines and possibly disbarring / sanctioning of some executives. But 23 is in the US, where now anything ‘goes’ (e.g. look at what happened to Social Security records!) and where the current administration has been backed (in a 180degree about-face) by Silicon Valley execs. (colleagues of Anne W) and supported due to its anti-EU stance on consumer protection.

For the cost of writing off the price of a DNA kit, I’d still have no hesitation in demanding they delete and destroy my records.

NPR has a balanced view https://www.npr.org/2025/03/24/nx-s1-5338622/23andme-bankruptcy-genetic-data-privacy?fbclid=IwY2xjawJQCCFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHVB2QDyA0O-t5n_2yqDXMN6K2Pu2oc7fplVyOHqjcn3EbW4AJ5QS32L5yA_aem_2MRjWwxisvtDa2ykwKAC9Q

pinkypinky

I've got no particular oar here. Blaine actually is a lawyer, but I've no idea what sort.

I think they'll be bought. But all the other DNA databases have been bought and sold a few times and we didn't have this level of panic.

Here's Leah Larkin's thoughts on the subject too.

https://thednageek.com/23andme-is-reorganizing-its-okay/

Mick Tator

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123300977#Comment_123300977

I’ve no dog in this fight either and I don’t want to flog this to death.Yes, Blaine B is an attorney, he operates in the field of patent law. Yes, there is a lot of scaremongering out there, but a considerable amount of assertions are based on very valid fears. Personal genetic data is probably THE most sensitive information. Past events have shown that 23 with Anne W as CEO hid a major cyber attack, and when it became public it and customer worries were arrogantly dismissed. Already holding 49% of the company, she probably will be the new owner.

Corporate governance under her rule was abysmal, leading to the resignation of ALL independent directors. From an investor/ business perspective, this is a huge red flag.

Dealing with the points of your source/link above, I’m not going to refute her points one by one as naive and ill-informed, but just a couple

“23andMe’s Chapter 11 restructuring was voluntary, not forced.  That’s a good thing.” – Nonsense. The co. was placed in C11 to protect it from being wound up by its creditors. C11 NEVER is a ‘good thing’.

“We know the company is in financial trouble, not least because of an attack in 2023, but not so much trouble that it’s shutting down.” Nonsense. The company had huge losses before the attacks, is still losing money hand over fist and is nearly dead because its business plan did not work. It failed, miserably.

“Instead, it’s restructuring and looking for a buyer to continue its mission.” Good luck with that.

Genealogy companies like Ancestry, MyHeritage etc did have new investors who 'bought in' because they saw potential growth with a genealogy business. Those investors were reputable funds/venture capitalists. The issue with 23 is that it is not a genealogy company, instead it is a genetics company until recently run and 49% controlled by a genetic zealot who is trying to make money by working with pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs. Is that what you want?

Yesterday the share price closed at 53 cents, which is 10cents above Anne W's last offer price. A couple of years ago they were trading between $200 and $300.each.

Trigger Happy

I am not sure if the below article is behind a paywall but NYT recommending people delete their data now. I have not been paying too close attention to this story over the past while but am now!

https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/23andme-data-bankrupt/

dubred

Adrian Weckler covered this on the latest episode of his podcast, he advised deleting data as well.

https://www.independent.ie/podcasts/the-big-tech-show/the-big-tech-show-dumb-and-dumber-the-us-signal-fiasco-why-your-23andme-dna-data-might-be-up-for-sale-and-social-media-lessons-from-adolescence/a980735615.html

Anyone who gives these companies their DNA / data are stone mad. These companies should be heavily regulatee. More than they are.

I really dont think that most realise the potential implications of using such services.

Hermy

For me the implications were finding my birth father - if that's stone mad then so be it.

pinkypinky

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123304478#Comment_123304478

Yes, this is the angle I'm looking at it from. I'm lucky to have known my parents all my life but many aren't and too many evil nuns destroyed or never kept paperwork, let alone people who were illegally adopted. DNA testing is the only way to help these people. In a couple of decades, we'll hopefully not have anyone new in this situation in Ireland, but it will alway be the case somewhere.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123304478#Comment_123304478

Good for you.

Hermy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123306446#Comment_123306446

Sorry Gusser, I wasn't having a go and I do agree that, like so much of the internet, the implications can be well beyond what we might imagine.

Viewing it solely from my perspective as a genealogist and adoptee genetic genealogy has been a game changer that has allowed me to make connections I would not otherwise have been able to make.

But on the other hand I suppose for those who don't want to be found for whatever reason that's where the potential implications you refer to begin and who knows where they'll end!

Mick Tator

A US Court has now ruled that 23andMe is entitled to sell the DNA data it holds subject to existing consents/permissions. This has given further impetus to the numbers wishing to have their data deleted, causing 23’s site to crash several times in recent days. In addition to the former founder/CEO, a blockchain company has expressed interest as a potential buyer.

Mick Tator

Update – Short read – more experts are suggesting you delete your 23andMe DNA data

Long read - An analysis of the 23andMe disaster and why I believe you should delete your data at 23.

Commentators here and in the media (FT, Sunday Indo, Sunday Times) are conflating several issues and misunderstanding what actually happened at 23. I’m writing from an EU perspective about two specific topics – (a) implications for the ‘ordinary punter’ who has tested and is unaware of what is underway at 23 and (b) why I think it’s a bad idea to leave your DNA record specifically with 23, a US based company.

I do not support the ‘stone mad’ viewpoint on doing a DNA test IF the decision is taken after informed consideration. Testing by those on this forum is about genealogical research, Hermy and Pinky are experienced genealogists and knew exactly what they were doing when testing.

If you take a DNA test you also are testing your close relatives, even if they do not wish to be tested. Conversely, if one of your relatives tested, be aware that much of your DNA is ‘out there’ now and by combining basic genealogical research with that data, “We will find you!” – just look at Hermy’s result above (or Google ‘Golden State Killer’). Do those who tested with 23 know/recall what permissions and consents they granted? Probably not!

The 23 company is at death’s door and the concerns I outline are based on its jurisdiction, its business model, its history, and its corporate governance under a person who is likely to be the new owner.

Jurisdiction – The DNA data is in the US, where consumer protection laws vary by State, but generally they are considerably weaker than those in the EU; be aware that US Federal law is weaker still. Misuse of DNA for medical purposes is outlawed in the US, but that too is considerably weaker than in the EU – e.g. there is no Federal law banning life insurance companies from accessing or using DNA. If your DNA is misused/stolen, you can forget doing anything about it in the US. It is not like losing your passport (that can be cancelled & replaced), your DNA is and will be YOU forever.

Business model –23’s stated business vision was"To help people access, understand, and benefit from the human genome" and was based on customers paying $100 to test and receive a DNA profile and ‘traits’ report. There also is a facility to match with close relatives. Then, 23 used your DNA data, partnering with pharma companies to develop new drugs. That model has displeased customers, investors and potential pharma partners. It stopped working a few years ago and I cannot see how this will change, even under new owners.

History - The company launched in 2006 with strong backing, largely due to the drive, wealth, academic qualifications and contacts of Anne Wojcicki, its major shareholder (49%), and co-founders biologists Linda Avey and Paul Cosenza. By 2008 it was an award-winning start-up. In 2009 Anne W. convinced the board that she alone should run the company and effectively ousted her co-founders who disagreed with her on the company’s focus/direction. In 2013 the US FDA ordered it to cease providing kits due to concerns that it failed to provide evidence of analytical or clinical validations for the test results. It took another two years of negotiations and upgrades before it was again allowed to sell directly to individuals. By 2018 the business had celebrity status (Oprah, film stars, J Lopez, etc) and signed a four-year deal with drugmaker GSK to research and develop new medicines using its database. The company went public (GSK invested $300million) in a deal engineered by Richard Branson, reportedly raising about $1.5 billion, driving up the share price and giving it a value of about $6 billion. Soon after, knowledge of the pharma tie-in was getting pushback from potential customers and sales of kits fell by almost 50%. People were worried about the privacy of data, and investors/potential partners shared similar concerns, seeing data privacy issues as a big potential liability. Early in 2023 there was a data breach at 23 and the event was – from a business and corporate governance perspective - totally mishandled.

Corporate Governance and the Data breach The data breach had been rumoured for some time and when it was officially acknowledged, 23 initially downplayed the occurrence, dismissing it as minor, saying the ‘threat actor’ was able to access less than 14,000 accounts, or less than 0.1% of its 14 million customers. It then focussed the blame on its customers because their password & login details were not sufficiently secure. This was because the breach – not a ‘hack’ – was enabled by ‘credential stuffing’ i.e. using a login & password used on a different site that had already been hacked, then ‘piggybacking’ on 23’s ‘DNA Relatives’ feature and opening a gateway to steal data. 23 ignored the fact that it did not offer customers a two-factor login facility that would have prevented this. Blaming the customer for bad cybersecurity never is a good idea!

One cohort of cyber criminals likes to boast of its achievements, hoping to increase notoriety and the value of the stolen data. In October 2023, a hacker called Golem posted on a cybercriminal forum, announcing it was he who had stolen the data from 23 and that he had targeted test kits by race – Jews and Chinese. (This got a lot of attention as the Hamas attack in Israel had just happened, and Anne W has Jewish heritage.) Golem released another 4 million ‘accounts’ and announced that he had far more info, on millions of German and UK customers, including Royals. Following lawsuits initiated by its customers, 23 acknowledged that the breach had been undetected for five months and that the personal information of 6.9 million users had been stolen. It asserted that no raw DNA was taken, but general datasets, such as sex, birth year, family trees. ethnicity results and geographical location had got into the hands of a ‘threat actor’. The business continued to spiral downwards and was haemorrhaging cash.

In March 2024, 23’s independent directors created a committee to assess the company’s future. While this was underway Anne W was preparing her own bid to buy the company.

In September 2024 a sum of $30 million was paid by 23 to settle one lawsuit related to the data breach. Since the legal fees have escalated hugely, and more actions are outstanding.

The same month all seven board members on the committee resigned from 23, saying they disagreed with Anne W about the "strategic direction for the company." They were displeased too by her offer, which valued the company at just $11 million.

In November 2024 about 200 employees (40% of workforce) were laid off and 23 discontinued the development of all its therapy research as part of a restructuring program.

23’s management / corporate governance is lamentable. It appears to have had neither a crisis management plan, not a business continuity plan. It should have been more aware of market conditions, of the cyber threats and much more careful of the sensitive data it was holding. Simply, its systems were either non-existent or badly flawed, and its cybersecurity was extremely lax. It ignored or learned nothing from the 2018 ‘event’ at its competitor MyHeritage when the email addresses of over 92 million (yep, ninety two million) of their users were accessed. At that time MyHeritage immediately confessed, outlined exactly what had happened and stepped-up work on two-factor ID (see link below). 23’s mishandling of its own breach is a great example of how not to handle a crisis.

23 has gone from being worth about $6 billion to about $10 million. So what will happen to the remains? The bankruptcy court judge will receive a ‘plan of reorganisation’ for the company in May. He wants a final offer by mid-June. Anne W already has 49% ownership, so is well placed to put forward a plan to buy it. Or, the shareholders / investors could put forward their own plan for its survival (typically writing off a percentage of the debt owed to them).

What is there to reorganise or sell? What are the assets? . 23’s only valuable asset is the database of its customers’ DNA. Without that, the company is valueless. From Anne W down, the management has shown itself to be a failure: the IT dept. either didn’t either know, care, or fight for proper data security. The sales & marketing depts. are non-performing, as indicated by the plummeting sales. Similarly, management direction & supervision were lacking. Half the staff is gone, no research work is being done (so most layoffs were the skilled researchers). The board is gone, a wealth of sector experience with it, and very few ‘quality’ directors would now want to take on a role in such a company with all that ‘baggage’. Or, indeed, take on the downside potential of reputational risk.

In US the purpose of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy is to allow a company a breathing space to focus on a restructure/be sold/raise new finance and its creditors cannot sue for debts owed, according to media now amounting to more than $200 million. If it fails to sort out its predicament, the company descends into Chapter 7 bankruptcy, there is a fire-sale of itsassets and the business ceases. Even today the creditors have remote hope of being paid in full and there is no hope for the investors getting their money back. When a successful buyer comes forward, the creditors whose rights are affected by the proposed plan of reorganization or sale will have to vote on whether to accept or reject it. If they reject the plan, the Court could order them to accept it (known as a cram down), a distinct possibility given Anne W’s stake.

All of the foregoing would not inspire most to have sufficient confidence to leave their DNA with 23, most people would delete it. The drama still has a distance to travel and eventually we might even see a Netflix program!

How MyHeritage handled their data breach https://blog.myheritage.com/2018/06/myheritage-statement-about-a-cybersecurity-incident/

Hermy

Excellent post Mick - seriously, it's really appreciated!

However, I want to make it clear to one and all, lest a line in the above be misconstrued - I AM NOT THE GOLDEN STATE KILLER!!! 😀

On a more germane point though, I've just had a look at the first five pages of my most recent matches on 23 & Me. That's 250 matches over a time period of about 12 months. Of those matches four are 3rd cousin 1x removed and two are 3rd cousin 2x removed. All the rest are 4th cousin or more distant, up to and including 9th, 10th and 11th cousins. In my experience anything beyond a 4th cousin match is of limited use, and in light of what we now know about this company, the inclusion of 9th, 10th and 11th cousin matches seems like nothing more than a futile attempt to keep the customer engaged.

The point being that, simply on a practical level, I don't think I'll be missing all that much if I do decide to delete my account. Yes, as I've said repeatedly, it was through 23 & Me that I was able to identify my birth father, but that was several years ago now and since then there have been no matches of note.

The auto-generated tree is one thing that I will miss. It's interesting in and of itself, but also, it's thrown up a curious 3rd cousin Franco-Irish match on my birth fathers side which I still can't make head nor tail of. But aside from that there's not much else to see and do.

Taking all of the above into consideration - the day-to-day limited usefulness of the site and the corporate governance issues which Mick has commented on extensively - I'm beginning to lean towards the Delete My Account option.

Does anyone else have thoughts on the matter?

pinkypinky

I'm going to wait and see who buys them before I make a final decision. I agree with Hermy that I don't have much personal use for the current matches but as a professional, I still need to be able to know how to use it in whatever format remains for clients.

silliussoddius

I deleted my account, I wasn't making much progress and I noticed that my most recent matches seemed to be showing as closer relatedness than what I'd expect based on percentage shared.