5 ms·

Which is a lesson in how VC can easily destroy a viable, profitable business with a "money-chasing-money" strategy.

• nl 10y ago
  How do you figure that? 1) VCs own hardly any shared of Twitter[1] 2) Stock grants are used as compensation for people working at Twitter, NOT something that benefits investors (except in the sense people are working at the company the investors invested in I guess). It's easy to blame VCs for everything, but I don't see how this makes any sense at all in this case. [1] http://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-ownership-takeover-acquisition-challenges http://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-owner...
  • nickbauman 10y ago
    Who is in line for a buyout before other investors and at what multiplier? That information is usually not public and can be more important than what percentage of ownership a particular investor has.
    • nl 10y ago
      They are a public company, with a single class of shareholder. They can all choose to buy or sell via the public market. Your comments would make some sense if they were pre-IPO.
      • nickbauman 10y ago
        Derp, you're right. I'm an idiot.
  • EGreg 10y ago
    Didn't USV invest in Twitter? Did they cash out after IPO?
    • vram22 10y ago
      >Didn't USV invest in Twitter? They sure did. Fred Wilson (USV partner) has talked about it (Twitter as a portfolio company of USV) many times on his blog avc.com . >Did they cash out after IPO? Not sure.
      • EGreg 10y ago
        Well otherwise what does it mean if they have a tiny part of an $18B company?
        • vram22 10y ago
          Ok got you. I had not read the OP. Interesting.
• fraserharris 10y ago
  Twitter IPO'd over 3 years ago.