3 ms·
> Personally, we are building a company[1] to have an impact. Profit is part of that, since how large of an impact is correlated with the number of customers we
by lgieron 10y ago
> Personally, we are building a company[1] to have an impact. Profit is part of that, since how large of an impact is correlated with the number of customers we can serve which requires certain fixed costs (e.g. salaries.) Profits also allow a company to weather market fluctuations and be free of the hype-cycles of investors.
You don't need a company - the same goals can be achieved by a non-profit. The main difference between a non-profit and a company is that the company's owners are allowed to pay themselves dividends from the profit. If you don't care about that, you'd probably be better off with a non-profit.
- vonmoltke 10y agoThere is potentially a shitload of extra paperwork, bookkeeping, and regulation involved in a 501(c) corporation that isn't present in a standard private corporation. Assuming, of course, you can convince the IRS that you fit one of the 501(c) subsections to begin with. Much easier just to run a standard, closely-held corporation or LLC.
- tyre 10y agoI looked at non-profits, but sincerely believe for-profit is better for our company. Our goals are aligned with our customers, not whoever gives us money. As a for-profit enterprise, we are truly independent from the whims of outside investors. It also changes the talent pool and partnership opportunities. The non-profits we have met, and there are many in the government space, move at a very different pace than a startup. They can also drift to working on the ideological over the practical. Since software is a quantifiable good, if we cannot sell it than we aren't building something people need, in which case we shouldn't exist. For-profit aligns our survival with our impact.