3 ms·
The VC in this case was most likely acting in economic self interest, but not in the interest of the entrepreneur (or so it would appear). This is a far cry fr
by ryanwaggoner 17y ago
The VC in this case was most likely acting in economic self interest, but not in the interest of the entrepreneur (or so it would appear).
This is a far cry from your headline that VCs "hate" entrepreneurs. VCs have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of their LPs. The best VCs work to align the interests of all parties involved, but when they conflict, the VCs have a duty to act in the best interest of their investors, just as entrepreneurs have a duty to act in the best interest of theirs. Using phrases like "VCs hate entrepreneurs" is beyond sensational and distorts the relationships and responsibilities of all parties.
For the record, I'm not a huge fan of the VC model, but for entirely different reasons.
- BrandonWatson 17y agoVCs, if they sit on the board, have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders - all of them. If they took a deal that benefitted themselves to the detriment of common shareholders, well, draw your own conclusions.
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoIt would seem that the deal in question offered the same benefit to all shareholders: an exchange of their stock in the company for Amazon stock. IANAL, but I doubt that the fiduciary responsibility includes ensuring that the founders get to keep their brand independent, especially when it makes more financial sense for the shareholders to sell.