3 ms·
The risk is the risk of failure. They won't get spun back in if they fail. They will go out of business, like any other startup. I don't see how this is anythi
by twblalock 10y ago
The risk is the risk of failure. They won't get spun back in if they fail. They will go out of business, like any other startup.
I don't see how this is anything like cheating on an exam. The founders of spin-in startups are good at what they do -- if they weren't, they wouldn't get such an arrangement in the first place, and even if they did, they wouldn't be acquired if they failed.
Meritocracy is not undermined when people with merit are identified and elevated -- in fact, that's the raison d'etre of meritocracy.
- trhway 10y agoit would be in the black and white world. In the real world an additional easy financing and/or acquihire later makes a failure less so. again, you describe an ideal world where abuse of any situation by the meritocratic ideal people taking ideal decisions just don't happen, the world where conflict of interest policies, etc... just wouldn't be necessary. In that world i would wanted to live and would agree with you 110%.
- twblalock 10y agoSo what? Lots of startups that deserve to fail and don't have this kind of arrangement also manage to get more financing, or get acquired or acquihired. That kind of thing is not unique to spin-ins. I also never claimed the world was a perfect meritocracy. I was saying that if it was, this kind of thing would not undermine it. It seems that we agree on that point. I brought it up in anticipation of counter-arguments that spin-ins subvert meritocracy.