5 ms·

You'd need to see the cap table and articles of incorporation to know if the board has any power. Salesforce invested $300m in the D round and doesn't have a se

You'd need to see the cap table and articles of incorporation to know if the board has any power. Salesforce invested $300m in the D round and doesn't have a seat, for example. Phil Black and maybe Toni Schneider's seats might be protected, but Matt could have the voting power to replace the other two at will. Current drama aside, good for him if that's the case. Very few founders maintain absolute control past a Series C.

chiefalchemist 2y ago
Good for him? He's just ruined that possibility for just about anyone else going forward. Praise him? No way. Ironic isn't it? He cries about the scourge known as PE, and he's single handedly f*ked every investor-seeking founder everywhere going forward.
- FreakLegion 2y ago
  Yes, good for him if the wholly speculative scenario I described is true. What's going on with Matt and WordPress will have zero impact on other founders.
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    So you're saying no other investor(s) - which btw Matt / Automattic has - anywhere are going to be concerned about what leverage they have if the founder goes sideways? That's naive at best. Plenty of investors are already asking "Can I get f*ked like this?" And going forward investors will be sure not to be exposed unnecessarily. Zero impact? That's silly. Investors what high returns and lowest possible risk. Matt has made single founder with too much control high risk. Yes, this has f*ked other investment-seeking founders. Full stop.
    - FreakLegion 2y ago
      No, it hasn't. I'm a founder. I have investors. Nobody serious is asking these questions, for reasons that make perfect sense when you're familiar with the mechanics of venture investing and corporate governance. I won't say nobody is asking questions at all, because "investor" is a loosey-goosey term and there are plenty of people writing small checks who call themselves investors. But those people never had leverage anyway. Investors get preferred shares with no voting rights (or even information rights!). The only ones who have any power are round leads, whose board seats are enshrined in the company's articles of incorporation. If -- and again, it's a big if -- Matt, after raising a billion dollars across many funding rounds, still controls a majority of the voting shares and board seats, it's because Automattic was already so successful that he's been able to dictate terms every step of the way. This is stupendously rare. It's not a situation that applies to other startups, or that investors are measurably worried about.
      - chiefalchemist 2y ago
        Your investors are fools then. I can not imagine writing a cheque for anything above $999 and not ensuring I have some sort of protection against this type of sideways. Frankly, if my investors weren't now concerned I'd be concerned about the quality of my investors. It's not a win to say they're not comcerned.

chiefalchemist 2y ago

Good for him? He's just ruined that possibility for just about anyone else going forward. Praise him? No way. Ironic isn't it? He cries about the scourge known as PE, and he's single handedly f*ked every investor-seeking founder everywhere going forward.

FreakLegion 2y ago
Yes, good for him if the wholly speculative scenario I described is true. What's going on with Matt and WordPress will have zero impact on other founders.
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  So you're saying no other investor(s) - which btw Matt / Automattic has - anywhere are going to be concerned about what leverage they have if the founder goes sideways? That's naive at best. Plenty of investors are already asking "Can I get f*ked like this?" And going forward investors will be sure not to be exposed unnecessarily. Zero impact? That's silly. Investors what high returns and lowest possible risk. Matt has made single founder with too much control high risk. Yes, this has f*ked other investment-seeking founders. Full stop.
  - FreakLegion 2y ago
    No, it hasn't. I'm a founder. I have investors. Nobody serious is asking these questions, for reasons that make perfect sense when you're familiar with the mechanics of venture investing and corporate governance. I won't say nobody is asking questions at all, because "investor" is a loosey-goosey term and there are plenty of people writing small checks who call themselves investors. But those people never had leverage anyway. Investors get preferred shares with no voting rights (or even information rights!). The only ones who have any power are round leads, whose board seats are enshrined in the company's articles of incorporation. If -- and again, it's a big if -- Matt, after raising a billion dollars across many funding rounds, still controls a majority of the voting shares and board seats, it's because Automattic was already so successful that he's been able to dictate terms every step of the way. This is stupendously rare. It's not a situation that applies to other startups, or that investors are measurably worried about.
    - chiefalchemist 2y ago
      Your investors are fools then. I can not imagine writing a cheque for anything above $999 and not ensuring I have some sort of protection against this type of sideways. Frankly, if my investors weren't now concerned I'd be concerned about the quality of my investors. It's not a win to say they're not comcerned.