If we set aside the crypto component completely, we're left with nothing but an objectively terrible show (the crypto makes this somehow worse). It's a Shark Tank-inspired show that's poorly written, poorly produced, and poorly edited.
The Pitches
=========
Nearly half of the time the entrepreneur's pitch does not explain what their project does at all. The other times when the entrepreneurs begin to explain their project, they are interrupted by one of the judges. This results in significant confusion by the audience about what the founder's project is even supposed to do. Furthermore, it appears that the judges have done extra research outside of the show because they reference information and data the founder never talked about, and that the audience is not privy to. There are little graphics of information shown in the background of some shots that attempt to add more information about the project, but with dubious measurements like "product health: 100%" and "community health: 70%" that don't appear to mean or affect anything. Very few of the judges actually ask critical questions about the project, and much of the time is spent inquiring about the personal life of the founder(s): what the relationships are between the founders, their relationships with family and spouses, their personal financial situations, their mental health situations, and their hobbies and interests. This is ok on its own because with startups oftentimes a lot of success *does* depend on the founder, but often times the entire pitch is spent talking about the founder without any time actually spent discussing the product. Far too often, this line of questioning devolves to just "vibe checks" and become completely divorced from the project. Concern about the founder being a former model and too much of a "pretty boy" to focus on the project is a valid critique on this front.
Season one seems to have been filmed around 2022 (and it's only being released in 2024?), and a check up on all of the projects featured across the entire season reveals that NONE of the projects have been successful to date.
The Judges
=========
The judges in each episode (some of whom are recurring and some of whom only appear for a single episode) are either: of dubious notability, dubious ability to objectively evaluate a project, or both. Many times, it's both. A substantial amount of the dialog between judges is just criticism of each other, nearly to the point of yelling amongst each other for seemingly no reason. It does not feel at all like friendly banter or competition between friends. Very few of the judges actually ask critical questions about the project itself and seem far more interested in competition amongst themselves and vibe checking the founder(s). Many of the points they bring up seemingly have nothing to do with the project or are flat out incorrect. Many wildly unsubstantiated claims by founders go completely unquestioned and some remarks by the judges themselves are just as equally unsubstantiated ("this project will help onboard the next billion people into crypto" --- what about on boarding the first billion first???).
The Editing
=========
The editing is just flat terrible and oftentimes just plain cringe and inappropriate. The opening montage in each episode gives away whether some of the founders will be successful within the first 30 seconds. The sound is poorly equalized, and some of the judges are much louder than others. The sound effects added after certain remarks founders or judges make are over the top and cringe. In one episode a founder and judge found they had an interest in common which was followed by a lengthy edit of the two of them exchanging awkward laughing gazes with cute music and hearts surrounding the woman judge. This was extremely inappropriate, incredibly cringe, and deserves no part in a professional show, which Killer Whales purports to be.
The worst thing of all
================
There are absolutely no stakes in this show. The judges are not investing any money at all; the winners only receive "mentorship" from the judges, and it is not clear what this means exactly. Do they get to talk with one judge? All of them? Is it a single consultation? Or a regular check-in? The judges are not putting anything concrete on the line at all, and the lack of any kind of stakes makes the entire premise of the show completely uncompelling. The arguing amongst the judges becomes meaningless when they're not fighting over anything at all as they're not becoming investors in the projects. This means you get all kinds of questionable stuff like judges neither sinking nor swimming with the projects, changing their response after hearing the evaluation of other judges. The judge's critiques seem to have absolutely no effect on their evaluation - often numerous drawbacks and criticisms by a judge are followed by a swim vote. The judges are not sacrificing anything, so why shouldn't they go in on a project. It just doesn't *mean* anything to give a thumbs up to a project.
Conclusion
=========
This is simply an absolutely terrible show. This is a crypto Shark Tank imitation showcasing non-notable judges, non-notable projects in an utterly no-stakes, poorly edited, cringe-inducing, no good, terrible, very bad package. DO NOT PAY MONEY TO WATCH THIS SHOW. PERIOD. Watch it for free on Tubi instead if you're interested.
