> But there's a serious difference between a down-round that's still makes Uber a uniquely valuable unicorn and the kind of down rounds that a more typical star

> But there's a serious difference between a down-round that's still makes Uber a uniquely valuable unicorn and the kind of down rounds that a more typical start-up might get. The best thing you can say about this is that "it could be worse", but down rounds are ugly no matter the amount. Because: - it indicates a downward trajectory. Start-ups in growth typically IPO at a higher valuation than their most recent round, because they're moving up. But the reverse is also true, so if present trends continue the IPO valuation may be even less. Sure, Softbank may have factored that in, but more ugly news has surfaced since then, like the destruction of evidence. - Down rounds scare away talent, both new hires (who will be much more reluctant to accept equity) and existing employees (who are going to get fucked over when existing investors demand more equity as compensation for the lower value)