Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Tailscale has raised $160M

    (tailscale.com)
    655 points louis-paul | 11 comments | 08 Apr 25 10:36 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    Show context
    elAhmo ◴[08 Apr 25 14:09 UTC] No.43621983[source]▶
    When I saw the new round, I was instantly worried about change in direction that will most likely come with this, and effectively drive away regular users from a tool that seems universally loved.

    Similar sentiment can be seen in the discussion from three years ago [1] when they raised $100M.

    [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31259950

    replies(5): >>43622328 #>>43622975 #>>43624385 #>>43624453 #>>43625024 #
    pomatic ◴[08 Apr 25 17:38 UTC] No.43624385[source]▶
    When they raised the 100M three years ago, I'm pretty sure they said they didn't need it and were saving it for a rainy day (or words to that effect), always seemed very odd at the time. Two q's for anyone who cares to speculate: have they burnt the original investment already? And if not, why would they need more funding? AFAICS there's no real competition in the market place for their product today, the only thing I can conceive is that they have a secret 'tailscale 2' project in the wings which is massively developer or capital intensive. Let's hope it is nothing related to AI band wagoning :-)
    replies(6): >>43624951 #>>43625524 #>>43626172 #>>43628716 #>>43629560 #>>43656604 #
    1. api ◴[08 Apr 25 20:34 UTC] No.43626172[source]▶
    You can't raise VC money and save it for a rainy day. If VCs wanted their money in a bank they'd just put it in a bank.

    If you raise $100M you have to put $100M to work or you'll hear constant shit from your board over it.

    If they raised $160M they're going to spend $160M on something. My guess would be a lot of enterprise features and product integrations.

    replies(4): >>43627167 #>>43627967 #>>43627969 #>>43652235 #
    2. groby_b ◴[08 Apr 25 22:39 UTC] No.43627167[source]▶
    That depends entirely on how you raise the funds. Yes, you can say "Here's the growth rate we'd get without your money - based on that, this investment gets you an ROI of x%."

    With x% high enough, sure, you can get VC money without too many strings. (Also, reading the Series B post, they were planning to invest - just in organic growth instead of the usual growth hacking)

    And if you read the Series C post, you'd know what they're spending on - GPU (and general) cloud interconnectivity.

    There's really not much need to guess, Tailscale's financing announcements are about as open as you can get.

    replies(1): >>43630781 #
    3. mgfist ◴[09 Apr 25 01:07 UTC] No.43627967[source]▶
    Not necessarily. You hear plenty of stories of companies who raised money they never ended up needing to touch.

    What matters is why. Is it because growth is so bonkers that your burn stays minimal/zero despite increasing costs? Or is it because you don't spend anything and thus can get by with stable revenue. VCs are very happy with the first, less so with the second.

    VCs would always prefer you get to megascale with less money - the less you raise, the less they get diluted.

    4. crmd ◴[09 Apr 25 01:07 UTC] No.43627969[source]▶
    Thank you. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to write “we don’t need the money but are saving for a rainy day” CEO talking points and press releases for companies that were < 90 days from not being able to make payroll.
    replies(1): >>43628939 #
    5. ytpete ◴[09 Apr 25 04:45 UTC] No.43628939[source]▶
    I guess technically they weren't lying, just holding back on disclosing that they already knew a rainy day was coming and it was coming very soon...
    replies(1): >>43640020 #
    6. pomatic ◴[09 Apr 25 10:57 UTC] No.43630781[source]▶
    What is tailscale going to do with GPUs? It's about as far removed from NL interaction as you can get, I really don't see any sane AI fit. Maybe they are using them for AI driven dev work? Probably need to think more laterally.
    replies(1): >>43637695 #
    7. groby_b ◴[09 Apr 25 20:41 UTC] No.43637695{3}[source]▶
    Read. The. Fine. Article.
    replies(1): >>43655815 #
    8. crmd ◴[10 Apr 25 02:19 UTC] No.43640020{3}[source]▶
    In my experience, many if not most tech executives don’t believe in the concept of truth vs lying. There are only “competing narratives.”
    9. Jommi ◴[11 Apr 25 10:02 UTC] No.43652235[source]▶
    this is not true at all lmao

    of COURSE you can raise money and not use it.

    10. yencabulator ◴[11 Apr 25 16:43 UTC] No.43655815{4}[source]▶
    The fine article seems to say lots of companies are using Tailscale to connect to servers with GPUs -- nothing in that implies that Tailscale would own the GPUs.
    replies(1): >>43656555 #
    11. PLG88 ◴[11 Apr 25 17:56 UTC] No.43656555{5}[source]▶
    I think you mean to say:

    The. fine. article. seems. to. say. lots. of. companies. are. using. Tailscale. to. connect. to. servers. with. GPUs. -- nothing. in. that. implies. that. Tailscale. would. own. the. GPUs.

    Besides my joke, you are bang on, nothing implies needing to buy GPUs and based on my knowledge of their product/the space, absolutely no reason to.