4 ms·
But without those 3 rounds, your company likely wouldn't have gotten to the $100M valuation. Sure, if you can get a company to a $1B exit without raising any fu
by jartelt 8y ago
But without those 3 rounds, your company likely wouldn't have gotten to the $100M valuation. Sure, if you can get a company to a $1B exit without raising any funding and avoiding any dilution, that is the best case. But, in reality most companies need to raise capital to grow. You accept dilution because the value of your shares should go up assuming the company is executing well and putting the capital to go use (i.e. increasing the company value).
If the value of your stake goes down, you shouldn't just blame dilution. You should blame the company for performing poorly.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- zacharycohn 8y agoRight, but consider if OP's other option was a Google/Amazon/Apple with total compensation at $250k a year. They could have worked in a stable environment with guaranteed $1M in compensation after 4 years, vs unstable and very demanding job with a low likelyhood of $1M total compensation over the same time horizon.
- jartelt 8y agoSure, but that is a separate argument. I agree that working at Google/Amazon/Apple probably gives most people the best income over time. The point is that if you work at startups dilution is not your enemy. Early Uber employees got diluted like crazy, but they will probably do well when they cash out (or already did in secondary offers).