3 ms·

We need a way to flag HN comments as having written by people who (sorry to pick on you, you're certainly not the only person who's done this) have not read the

We need a way to flag HN comments as having written by people who (sorry to pick on you, you're certainly not the only person who's done this) have not read the post. Having half the discussion page being taken up by someone who is responding to the headline is sort of not great, I would submit, because it draws attention away from better comment threads. Some comments we can, in good faith, assume the reader misunderstood; but this article clearly wasn't about lockup, as the fourth paragraph begins to explain: > Former BuzzFeed employees have described a rushed process, one that potentially allowed more room for human error than a traditional I.P.O. They were first contacted about the steps needed to convert their BuzzFeed equity into tradable stock the week of Thanksgiving, two weeks before the company went public... Back in the Slashdot days, these comments would be moderated as Irrelevant.

throwaway5752 5y ago
I was a /.er and a metamod, I think you are giving their moderation too much credit. I agree with you about the article and my comment, to an extent. I was confused reading the New Yorker article and by the headline. I noted this in a different comment, but I'd assumed "missed their payday" had to mean there was no possibility of a payday. It actually took me a few times reading the article to figure out "missed their payday" meant "missed the opening day pop". Also, to be fair to myself, even though I didn't just talk about lockups, but "lockouts and conversions between classes of shares". I went through a similar experience with another company, but not a SPAC liquidity event. In my case it was worse because I was subject to a lockup. In that respect, I think that the former BuzzFeed employees here actually were treated pretty well. I couldn't sell for months. I am sorry they are unhappy with the process and the transfer agent, Continental. It sounds like it really was more rushed and had more room for error than a traditional IPO, being a SPAC transaction. A lot of times companies will reach the public markets via SPACs because they just aren't that attractive of investments or have other problems that making traditional IPOs not viable. It is just not that sympathetic of a situation to me, and the complaint seems cynical. The former employees had already exercised their shares. Assuming no restrictive bylaws they could have sold on a pre-IPO site like Sharespost or Equityzen. But they either were stuck with unsellable shares or were waiting out a better deal. They are getting their shares - they just missed selling at the top, thus far. The article could be accurately titled "Former BuzzFeed employees have delays with transfer agent, cannot sell in first trading day". Ideally that shouldn't happen but it's less dramatic.

throwaway5752 5y ago

I was a /.er and a metamod, I think you are giving their moderation too much credit. I agree with you about the article and my comment, to an extent. I was confused reading the New Yorker article and by the headline. I noted this in a different comment, but I'd assumed "missed their payday" had to mean there was no possibility of a payday. It actually took me a few times reading the article to figure out "missed their payday" meant "missed the opening day pop". Also, to be fair to myself, even though I didn't just talk about lockups, but "lockouts and conversions between classes of shares". I went through a similar experience with another company, but not a SPAC liquidity event. In my case it was worse because I was subject to a lockup. In that respect, I think that the former BuzzFeed employees here actually were treated pretty well. I couldn't sell for months. I am sorry they are unhappy with the process and the transfer agent, Continental. It sounds like it really was more rushed and had more room for error than a traditional IPO, being a SPAC transaction. A lot of times companies will reach the public markets via SPACs because they just aren't that attractive of investments or have other problems that making traditional IPOs not viable. It is just not that sympathetic of a situation to me, and the complaint seems cynical. The former employees had already exercised their shares. Assuming no restrictive bylaws they could have sold on a pre-IPO site like Sharespost or Equityzen. But they either were stuck with unsellable shares or were waiting out a better deal. They are getting their shares - they just missed selling at the top, thus far. The article could be accurately titled "Former BuzzFeed employees have delays with transfer agent, cannot sell in first trading day". Ideally that shouldn't happen but it's less dramatic.