>Google and Facebook got away with it because they were highly profitable before the IPO. Snap was not like that... So basically, we'll see it with the compani

>Google and Facebook got away with it because they were highly profitable before the IPO. Snap was not like that... So basically, we'll see it with the companies that are profitable at the time of their ipo's, but we won't see it with the companies that are unprofitable, (and maybe even losing money), at the time of their ipo's. Sounds to me like the future Facebooks and Googles of the world will continue to set up structures like these. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not complaining. I know, it's the founder's company. I get that. I'm free not to invest if I don't like the terms. I just wanted to point out that HN User "Animats'" conclusion that founders will choose this structure less and less is flawed. It really does seem to me that this structure is just going to be more and more of a reality in the future for any of the startups that are actually worth buying into. (ie - Any of the startups that actually make money.) In the end, the founders of the winning companies don't want their money or power diluted.