4 ms·

I'm glad the author grasped that the show is entertainment, and actually has a few words of wisdom. But the idea behind this show is disgusting and dishearteni

I'm glad the author grasped that the show is entertainment, and actually has a few words of wisdom. But the idea behind this show is disgusting and disheartening. This line bit me: >"What do you care about the percentage?" Only in Silicon Valley would you hear something like this. The ownership structure of your company isn't a joke or a game. It does matter. Why stop at 40%? Why not give up 99%? If you're out looking for financing for your company and "don't care" about how much equity you're giving up, you shouldn't be in business.

mirceagoia 15y ago
I think that he may refer at the first time entrepreneurs, unproven entrepreneurs. Because after your first success (hopefully) bet you will know more and they won't try to mess you too much anymore. My guess...
- carbocation 15y ago
  So would it be a fair paraphrase of his view to say that Mark Zuckerberg shouldn't have cared about the percentage of Facebook that he retained?
  - mirceagoia 15y ago
    There are exceptions always, especially when an entrepreneur think he will do that thing his whole life (as Mark Zuckerberg is ought to do). If you are a first time entrepreneur and you have the mindset of "I like to start things, over and over again" then it's easy to give up larger chunks of your first company because you know you will come back to start another startup after a while. Serial entrepreneurs belong here. If you think "This is something I'll be doing my whole life and I couldn't see myself doing anything else" then yes, it's harder to give up good chunks of your first and last company. Zuckerberg or Steve Jobs and others like them belong here.
    - carbocation 15y ago
      Steve Jobs owned ~1% of AAPL shares vs Zuckerberg's much larger stake in Facebook. They are nearly on opposite ends of the spectrum of that particular spectrum.
      - mirceagoia 15y ago
        In the beginning they both owned a lot. And if it wouldn't be the luck of Sean Parker giving Zuckerberg his board seat and sided with him then Zuckerberg might have not been in charge at FB now (he would still own shares).
      - a-priori 15y ago
        At one point, when Steve Jobs was fired from Apple, he sold all but one share of Apple. So his 1% was the result of converting his NeXT shares, not original Apple shares.
asanwal 15y ago
I agree with your sentiment, but I think the advice has some merit in the sense that if you have an offer that might be the difference between life and death of your company, it is probably not the best decision to fight over 5% of equity. Of course, 40% vs. 90% is a different ball of wax. On another front, I think the best part of the show (I'm a fan) is that it shows how much leverage shifts from investor to entrepreneur when the entrepreneur has built a real company (usually means has sales on the show). In those cases, the investors often fall over themselves and compete giving the entrepreneur a better deal then they came in asking for. There is a great lesson in there for entrepreneurs to focus on building something valuable first and then raising money. Because when you don't need it to survive, the negotiating leverage and power totally changes.

mirceagoia 15y ago

I think that he may refer at the first time entrepreneurs, unproven entrepreneurs. Because after your first success (hopefully) bet you will know more and they won't try to mess you too much anymore. My guess...

carbocation 15y ago
So would it be a fair paraphrase of his view to say that Mark Zuckerberg shouldn't have cared about the percentage of Facebook that he retained?
- mirceagoia 15y ago
  There are exceptions always, especially when an entrepreneur think he will do that thing his whole life (as Mark Zuckerberg is ought to do). If you are a first time entrepreneur and you have the mindset of "I like to start things, over and over again" then it's easy to give up larger chunks of your first company because you know you will come back to start another startup after a while. Serial entrepreneurs belong here. If you think "This is something I'll be doing my whole life and I couldn't see myself doing anything else" then yes, it's harder to give up good chunks of your first and last company. Zuckerberg or Steve Jobs and others like them belong here.
  - carbocation 15y ago
    Steve Jobs owned ~1% of AAPL shares vs Zuckerberg's much larger stake in Facebook. They are nearly on opposite ends of the spectrum of that particular spectrum.
    - mirceagoia 15y ago
      In the beginning they both owned a lot. And if it wouldn't be the luck of Sean Parker giving Zuckerberg his board seat and sided with him then Zuckerberg might have not been in charge at FB now (he would still own shares).
    - a-priori 15y ago
      At one point, when Steve Jobs was fired from Apple, he sold all but one share of Apple. So his 1% was the result of converting his NeXT shares, not original Apple shares.

asanwal 15y ago

I agree with your sentiment, but I think the advice has some merit in the sense that if you have an offer that might be the difference between life and death of your company, it is probably not the best decision to fight over 5% of equity. Of course, 40% vs. 90% is a different ball of wax. On another front, I think the best part of the show (I'm a fan) is that it shows how much leverage shifts from investor to entrepreneur when the entrepreneur has built a real company (usually means has sales on the show). In those cases, the investors often fall over themselves and compete giving the entrepreneur a better deal then they came in asking for. There is a great lesson in there for entrepreneurs to focus on building something valuable first and then raising money. Because when you don't need it to survive, the negotiating leverage and power totally changes.