2 ms·
"Abusive"? That's a bit over the top. No one is forcing these people to put money into these companies if they dont like the terms.
by nalfien 7y ago
"Abusive"? That's a bit over the top. No one is forcing these people to put money into these companies if they dont like the terms.
- grandridge 7y agoIf they actually had to earn the money they'd treat it different. Free money just enables stupid shit like this at all our expenses. The comment you responded to is on point
- asdkhadsj 7y agoI mean, it sounds like it is abusive, but it's an abusive relationship investors sought out. At this point it's akin to someone who seeks out abusive partners due to mental health issues. It doesn't make the partners any less abusive, but lets not kid ourselves and think the seeker is a healthy individual. Their greed is killing them.
- ehsankia 7y agoI think the reality of the situation is that some of these investors actually like the "visionary leader who full control and isn't dragged down by investors" model.
- pgwhalen 7y agoYeah I don’t understand why people in this thread aren’t entertaining that possibility. It objectively worked for Facebook, at least in terms of financial return.