> a lot of startups like Figma only exist because acquisitions are common and therefore offers early investors an exit on their investment that isn't 1-2 decade

> a lot of startups like Figma only exist because acquisitions are common and therefore offers early investors an exit on their investment that isn't 1-2 decades in the future. > If we got rid of M&A in tech there would significantly less investment and much less innovation It appears this way because of the path we took with our economy, but that doesn’t mean that an alternate path isn’t viable. The giants didn’t get big through innovation. They all created some initial innovation that allowed them to print money, which then allowed them to gobble up any other company that could either be of use or compete against them. If they weren’t able to acquire, that money wouldn’t disappear from the economy. It could be sent back to shareholders in the form of dividends, who would find other investments for it. Perhaps the market would find the best use for that money instead of having it controlled by a few giant entities. I tend to think that’s how the stock market was supposed to work.