3 ms·
The work they put in still can't solve the constant need for cash to keep the lights on, so?
by gcbw2 8y ago
The work they put in still can't solve the constant need for cash to keep the lights on, so?
- jedberg 8y agoI'm not denying that the capital has a ton of value for the company. Without it the company would have failed long ago. But I'm just making a commentary on the relative value of the capital vs. the work.
- zaroth 8y agoTwo people. Working for less than 10 years each. Spending billions of dollars of other people’s money. Speaking as a Founder myself.... Honestly their stake is too damn high. They didn’t do 0.001% of the work required to build the company. Could you make the case they even had some unique skill or insight that meant they were providing even 1% of the business value? They were just first. And they weren’t even the first with the idea of how to build a “Lyft”. They were just the first on this particular cap table.
- pytyper2 8y agoThey also owned the company, this means something.
- empath75 8y agoThe capital invested represents the accumulated work of a lot of other people.
- wickedsmile 8y agoAnd capital is acquired for free? Think it this way, the work of founders which got them their share of capital will be used as investment in some other company. Or are you trying to claim the capital invested in this company by investors was acquired for free without putting in any work or risk?
- ykevinator 8y agoThat's why if they're smart they'll liquidate like andreesen and cuban. The company may be worth a fraction of this.