2 ms·

I really think we should distinguish between people providing goods to the public, for which there is an immediate need for competition, and B2B services like F

I really think we should distinguish between people providing goods to the public, for which there is an immediate need for competition, and B2B services like Figma. Monopolization of the former can cause active harm to individuals right now. Monopolization of the latter leads to... businesses having to spend more and provides incentives for other competitors. In particular, what I think a lot of people are missing is that this could be the end for Figma too. I'm going to guess the workers there were really hoping for a payout. If they don't get that, there's going to be de-motivation. Especially having basically been told they're too big to acquire. An IPO is possible, but the opportunity costs given the current markets are almost too much to bear. I feel sorry for them.

notnullorvoid 3y ago
Any policy that disincetivizes growth by unsustainable practices is good policy IMO. We need less companies who's end goal is getting acquired, and more that are in it to build a self sustainable business. Having employee motivation hinge on a acquisition is one of the most toxic business practices. My general rule of thumb is that unless the company is putting you in a position where you actually get to drive, stock should be treated only as icing on the cake of an already worth while salary. (Unless it's a publicly traded company where you can reasonably assert that stock price will most likely go up or stay around the same)