3 ms·
I completely and vehemently disagree with your response. You are acting as if the dot com bust never even happened!! I have no clue how old you are, but if yo
by steve8918 15y ago
I completely and vehemently disagree with your response. You are acting as if the dot com bust never even happened!! I have no clue how old you are, but if you are over the age of 35, maybe you'll remember that the dotcom "boom" was merely a two-fisted cash grab from investors into the pockets of the founders and VCs. I certainly hope that as in industry, we don't make the same mistake twice in 10 years, lest it will again kill future investment in Silicon Valley for the next subsequent years.
It probably sucks to be the founders of AirBNB to have this info exposed, but they have the opportunity to respond to Chamath's opinion. It certainly seems as though they are in an indefensible position, but maybe there's a good reason why they are withdrawing millions from an as-of-yet unprofitable company. As I mentioned in another comment, I don't recall Bezos ever doing this.
You seem to have forgotten about the lessons of the dotcom boom. It's not about the founders or the VCs, it's about the investors. During the dotcom boom, founders and VCs both screwed the investors out of billions upon billions. A great deal of money was lost during the bust, and a lot of peoples' lives were affected. If you were around Silicon Valley at the time, you would know that the amount of jobs lost during the bust was worse per-capita than Detroit in the 80s. As a morbid datapoint, commuting on the 101 got much better at the nadir of the bust, because so many peoples' jobs were lost. The company I was at had half a dozen layoffs in 1 year, and lost 50% of the employees. The last thing I want to see is another round of smash-and-grab VCs and founders bilking more money from investors, and killing investment again, possibly putting me out of job because the SV economy contracts again.
The point that Chamath made is that the money is ONLY going to the founders and maybe some initial investors. Employees are being locked out of this. Say what you want about companies like Google and Facebook, but Brin, Page and Zuckerberg never turned their companies into cash-grabs where only they benefited.
We need MORE transparency, not less, so when seemingly shady things like founders withdrawing millions from the company coffers occurs, I would like more information about this.
I want to know if this is another second-coming of the dot-com bust, where I could lose my job and be unemployed for months/years because VCs, founders, and Wall Street were all complicit in sucking and spending money from investors, and then causing a complete seizing of investment in the Valley.
I have to admit that SARBOX actually did end up exposing companies like Groupon. At least there is a modicum of transparency in the S-1 filings so that people could see the accounting techniques being used by Groupon.
- user95000 15y agoEveryone got caught up in the dot com boom. This includes founders, VCs, employee shareholders, public shareholders, and acquiring companies. To blame just founders and VCs as money-grubbers who screwed everyone else makes them sound much smarter than they actually were. Even the best VCs blew hundreds of millions of $ in bad bets, like how Sequoia plowed money into Webvan. Public investors committed the largest valuation run-ups at the time. Remember how hot day trading was? In the end, they got left with the short end of the stick. Your general sentiment is right. The people who are rich now are the ones who cashed out when times got frothy. Hard working employees should be given the same opportunity as the people who architect the deal.
- SkyMarshal 15y agoFyi, George has been around a while: http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=grellas http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=grellas http://grellas.com/ http://grellas.com/
- 0x12 15y ago> The point that Chamath made is that the money is ONLY going to the founders and maybe some initial investors. Employees are being locked out of this. You seem to have missed an important detail: the dividend was to 'common stock', without a full list of stockholders you can not make the claim that employees are being locked out of this.