←back to thread

659 points louis-paul | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.42s | source
Show context
tmpz22 ◴[] No.43624557[source]
If they had taken just say $40 million would they be able to sustain their project for the foreseeable future and perhaps not yield as much future product direction and equity?

I honestly don't know how this big dealmaking works but it strikes me that when you take out this big of an obligation that the obligation has a gravity that may drag you in a direction you (or consumers) do not want to go.

Love Tailscale as a product (as does everyone I talk to) but genuinely want to learn more about the trade-offs as usually when we see big dollar signs all we do is celebrate.

replies(6): >>43624690 #>>43625018 #>>43625510 #>>43626138 #>>43626140 #>>43626489 #
lazzlazzlazz ◴[] No.43624690[source]
Equity investments like this don't need to be repaid, so there isn't a legal obligation to repay them. Of course, there is an obligation to maximize shareholder value — but that is totally independent of the dollar amount invested.

When founders raise this much money, it's because there's (1) a lot they want to do and hire for, or (2) they don't want to worry about monetizing the product for a significant period and focus on growth or product development.

replies(3): >>43624713 #>>43624887 #>>43625928 #
1. cj ◴[] No.43624887[source]
(3) investors offer the option for founders (and earlier investors) to take money off the table by buying up a percentage of their stake, essentially creating a mini-exit for the founder and earlier investors