3 ms·

This statement is pure conjecture on your part and is therefore invalid: > It seems to me like the company is being set up for an acquisition in which 1 person

This statement is pure conjecture on your part and is therefore invalid: > It seems to me like the company is being set up for an acquisition in which 1 person > and exactly 1 person benefits. Additionally, it felt like there was an innate distrust > in all employees and potential business partners, and a need to assert dominance and > complete control. Treehouse is my fourth company. I sold two and one failed. I have no interest in "setting up for an acquisition". Treehouse is the most meaningful thing I've ever done and probably will ever do. I'm fortunate to live comfortable and to be doing something that I passionately believe in. Why would I engineer the company for a sale? Happy to battle it out with commenters on facts but your conjectures about my motivations for structuring Treehouse are silly unless you bother to ask me first.

just2n 13y ago
A conjecture is not invalid by default. My reasoning is based on what appear to be, to me, on the surface, primarily selfish reasons for wanting to be the sole founder. As I observed when this blog post was originally made, it seems to me that you're setting up a situation where you'd almost exclusively benefit if the company succeeds (or gets acquired). This certainly wouldn't inspire confidence in me if I were looking for a new startup, so I would assume others would feel the same way. Given that it looks like there's very little equity sharing, I'd expect a very high salary and potentially turnover given that there isn't long-term incentives, and I don't, as an outsider, see long-term plans for building something huge. I'd be wary, to say the least, but that's me. Maybe I'm wrong, it certainly wouldn't be the first time, so while it may be a conjecture, it may also be true.
- whyleyc 13y ago
  Except it's not true because the founder of the company just addressed your point head-on when he said: > I have no interest in "setting up for an acquisition". Conjecture is fine, if you are able to change it in the light of new evidence. Otherwise you just look like an ostrich :)
  - just2n 13y ago
    That's not really "new evidence."

just2n 13y ago

A conjecture is not invalid by default. My reasoning is based on what appear to be, to me, on the surface, primarily selfish reasons for wanting to be the sole founder. As I observed when this blog post was originally made, it seems to me that you're setting up a situation where you'd almost exclusively benefit if the company succeeds (or gets acquired). This certainly wouldn't inspire confidence in me if I were looking for a new startup, so I would assume others would feel the same way. Given that it looks like there's very little equity sharing, I'd expect a very high salary and potentially turnover given that there isn't long-term incentives, and I don't, as an outsider, see long-term plans for building something huge. I'd be wary, to say the least, but that's me. Maybe I'm wrong, it certainly wouldn't be the first time, so while it may be a conjecture, it may also be true.

whyleyc 13y ago
Except it's not true because the founder of the company just addressed your point head-on when he said: > I have no interest in "setting up for an acquisition". Conjecture is fine, if you are able to change it in the light of new evidence. Otherwise you just look like an ostrich :)
- just2n 13y ago
  That's not really "new evidence."