4 ms·
I know it's a little off topic by why on earth wouldn't one take a 3-billion-cash offer for a company without revenue? This simply amazes me. I must be missing
by yawz 13y ago
I know it's a little off topic by why on earth wouldn't one take a 3-billion-cash offer for a company without revenue? This simply amazes me. I must be missing the uber-motivated-entrepreneur gene.
- jliptzin 13y agoMaybe the founders are already rich, they like the attention, and don't care about padding their bank accounts any more. They do (or should) have a duty to their investors and employees who might feel otherwise though...
- yawz 13y agoEven in the case of rich founders, I think money is such a great enabler that one can take that incredible amount and move on to the next thing (or things). I respect one's decision to brush the money aside and move on towards the big dream but we're talking about 3 billion here :).
- byoung2 13y agoBefore the $3 billion offer, when SnapChat raised $80 million at an $800 million valuation, the founders each took $10 million off the table. The investors probably wrote a clause into the deal giving them the right to approve any acquisition offer [1]. The investors want tens of billions. 1. http://valleywag.gawker.com/source-snapchat-cofounders-unloaded-personal-stock-for-574730704 http://valleywag.gawker.com/source-snapchat-cofounders-unloa...
- jessaustin 13y agoDo we know it was just the founder who made the decision, or could it have also been VCs trying to stretch a double into an inside-the-park four-bagger?