4 ms·
> but it obviously wasn’t worthless I disagree, there's nothing obvious about it. On the contrary, I argue that it WAS worthless (in the same vein that "ideas
by virgilp 6y ago
> but it obviously wasn’t worthless
I disagree, there's nothing obvious about it. On the contrary, I argue that it WAS worthless (in the same vein that "ideas are worthless" - not that they lack anything of value, but that without sustained effort & dedication to extract said value, they're really not worth much).
Also, it's entirely possible that the value of the company was actually _negative_ for the investors. Happens with other stuff too - sometimes you throw out junk that others recondition & sell for large sums of money. Were you tricked by those who resold your junk?
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago> On the contrary, I argue that it WAS worthless The founder continued running the company with part time contractors and blogged about their profitability. It wasn’t worthless.
- virgilp 6y agoThe founder might've earned more at a FAANG or different companies, just like the other early employees presumably did. He didn't contact the investors to buy them out for $1 - the investors did, because the tax cut was worth more to them by that point.