3 ms·

The issue here is that both sides want the acquisition, and it's being blocked for external reasons that have nothing to do with the fundamentals. I'm generall

The issue here is that both sides want the acquisition, and it's being blocked for external reasons that have nothing to do with the fundamentals. I'm generally pretty negative on the build-to-flip mentality. However, sometimes an acquisition is the right thing, and I also think this investor is a horrible person for blocking an acquisition that both sides clearly want, just to serve his own career goals. Investors ought to be passive beneficiaries. Yes, their financial interests deserve respect. No, they shouldn't be the real bosses. Funding ought to be the commodity, almost like a utility; talent ought to be treated as scarce and precious (because true talent is). But in the modern Valley, it's gone the other way.

tptacek 13y ago
You are totally free to only accept money from investors who will have no control over your company.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  As you know, VC is a reputation economy and the VCs all talk and collude. VCs can get whatever terms they want because they know that if you say no, they'll bad-mouth you to the rest of the investor community. It's extortion. People don't end up in those kinds of deals because they're stupid. Not all of them, at least. Often, they have no other choice because an investor will either back them or end them, the latter being a power they have in this backward, feudalistic reputation economy.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    If you feel that way about investors, don't take outside investment. We didn't. Things worked out peachy. It's a strange thing, to feel entitled to set the terms under which people give you their money. We didn't like the available terms. I don't have much nice to say about the venture capitalists I've known. But I don't have an elaborate worldview built around those impressions, and you do. You should try to shake it off.
- frandroid 13y ago
  Investors become owners. Since when do owners have no say in when they sell their property?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    It's not at all true that all investors end up with control. In fact, in the large, most investors don't. Neither here nor there, though, because it was a buyer's side investor that scotched this deal.

tptacek 13y ago

You are totally free to only accept money from investors who will have no control over your company.

michaelochurch 13y ago
As you know, VC is a reputation economy and the VCs all talk and collude. VCs can get whatever terms they want because they know that if you say no, they'll bad-mouth you to the rest of the investor community. It's extortion. People don't end up in those kinds of deals because they're stupid. Not all of them, at least. Often, they have no other choice because an investor will either back them or end them, the latter being a power they have in this backward, feudalistic reputation economy.
- tptacek 13y ago
  If you feel that way about investors, don't take outside investment. We didn't. Things worked out peachy. It's a strange thing, to feel entitled to set the terms under which people give you their money. We didn't like the available terms. I don't have much nice to say about the venture capitalists I've known. But I don't have an elaborate worldview built around those impressions, and you do. You should try to shake it off.
frandroid 13y ago
Investors become owners. Since when do owners have no say in when they sell their property?
- tptacek 13y ago
  It's not at all true that all investors end up with control. In fact, in the large, most investors don't. Neither here nor there, though, because it was a buyer's side investor that scotched this deal.