4 ms·

If this wasn't Slack that it was referring to - I think I'd agree. However, if I remember correctly, it was basically Stewart taking advantage of the investor

If this wasn't Slack that it was referring to - I think I'd agree. However, if I remember correctly, it was basically Stewart taking advantage of the investor frenzy and putting a ton of cash in the bank. It's not like they're burning it on ads or promos like Groupon or Uber. My feeling was they were taking advantage of the investing environment to really shore up their cash reserves - no matter the valuation.

tim333 11y ago
Stewart Butterfield seemed remarkably astute in the reasons he gave to the NYT as to why he was raising the money when he didn't need it: "It’s pretty straightforward. I’ve been in this industry for 20 years. This is the best time to raise money ever. It might be the best time for any kind of business in any industry to raise money for all of history, like since the time of the ancient Egyptians. It’s certainly the best time for late-stage start-ups to raise money from venture capitalists since this dynamic has been around. And as a board member and a C.E.O., I have a responsibility to our employees, to our customers. And as a fiduciary, I think it would be almost imprudent for me not to accept $160 million bucks for 5-ish percent of the company when it’s offered on favorable terms." It surprised me in the 1999 boom and crash how few players seemed to recognise there was a bubble and game the system. Most of them believed the hype and went bust. Only a few seemed to recognise their valuations were crazy and that could be taken advantage of such as AOL merging with Time Warner. I think Butterfield is one of the few to recognise the hype and take advantage this time around. Many others are using the available cash to hire excessive numbers of expensive employees which may bring them down when things dry up.
- sah2ed 11y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out. The full NYT interview can be found here [0]. [0] http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/is-slack-really-worth-2-8-billion-a-conversation-with-stewart-butterfield/?_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/is-slack-really-wor...
- joelrunyon 11y ago
  That was the article I remember reading about. Smart move on his part.

tim333 11y ago

Stewart Butterfield seemed remarkably astute in the reasons he gave to the NYT as to why he was raising the money when he didn't need it: "It’s pretty straightforward. I’ve been in this industry for 20 years. This is the best time to raise money ever. It might be the best time for any kind of business in any industry to raise money for all of history, like since the time of the ancient Egyptians. It’s certainly the best time for late-stage start-ups to raise money from venture capitalists since this dynamic has been around. And as a board member and a C.E.O., I have a responsibility to our employees, to our customers. And as a fiduciary, I think it would be almost imprudent for me not to accept $160 million bucks for 5-ish percent of the company when it’s offered on favorable terms." It surprised me in the 1999 boom and crash how few players seemed to recognise there was a bubble and game the system. Most of them believed the hype and went bust. Only a few seemed to recognise their valuations were crazy and that could be taken advantage of such as AOL merging with Time Warner. I think Butterfield is one of the few to recognise the hype and take advantage this time around. Many others are using the available cash to hire excessive numbers of expensive employees which may bring them down when things dry up.

sah2ed 11y ago
Thanks for pointing that out. The full NYT interview can be found here [0]. [0] http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/is-slack-really-worth-2-8-billion-a-conversation-with-stewart-butterfield/?_r=0 http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/is-slack-really-wor...
joelrunyon 11y ago
That was the article I remember reading about. Smart move on his part.