4 ms·

This article is ridiculous. He was the founder, and obviously (because he is no longer in the picture) decided to sell or give away enough equity in the compan

This article is ridiculous. He was the founder, and obviously (because he is no longer in the picture) decided to sell or give away enough equity in the company to the point that he no longer held a controlling interest. Thus he no longer plays any part in the company's goings on and rightfully so. That was his decision, and nobody elses. One has to assume that he was content with it at the time. If he still held 51% or more of the company and still wished to be a part of Etsy, he easily could have done so. So could have basically every other founder in history. If Steve Jobs knew that Apple would go on to become the most valuable company in the world one day, and that Mike Markkula was going to vote him out of his own company a decade later, he probably wouldn't have sold him 30% of the company for $80,000 either. Hindsight is 20/20.

chrisbolt 12y ago
> This article is ridiculous. Yes, but not for the reasons you list. The article cites Eduardo Saverin, who is not at all forgotten thanks to The Social Network. It lists Noah Glass, who was only involved in Twitter in the early days. It lists Ron Wayne, who was a Co-Founder of Apple for less than two weeks. It lists founders of Pandora, who left long before its IPO. And yet one of Etsy's founders, with the company from 2005 to 2011, is forgotten? > He was the founder He was one of three founders [1] > and [...] decided to sell or give away enough equity in the company to the point that he no longer held a controlling interest. Thus he no longer plays any part in the company's goings on and rightfully so. So if you don't control 51% of the company, you don't play ANY part in the company's goings on? > If he still held 51% or more of the company and still wished to be a part of Etsy, he easily could have done so. So could have basically every other founder in history. How do you 'still' hold 51% of the company with two co-founders? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etsy#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etsy#History
wilsynet 12y ago
Apple probably wouldn't have been the success that it was without someone like Markula. As for whether it was Kalin's decision and his alone, there is no doubt that it was his and the other co-founders decision to raise money and do it by selling equity. Whether it was his decision to be removed as CEO, that seems less likely. And was he asked to leave or play a different role, I have no idea.
jpmattia 12y ago
> and obviously (because he is no longer in the picture) decided to sell or give away enough equity in the company to the point that he no longer held a controlling interest. Not completely obvious: It is possible that his shares were diluted into oblivion.

chrisbolt 12y ago

> This article is ridiculous. Yes, but not for the reasons you list. The article cites Eduardo Saverin, who is not at all forgotten thanks to The Social Network. It lists Noah Glass, who was only involved in Twitter in the early days. It lists Ron Wayne, who was a Co-Founder of Apple for less than two weeks. It lists founders of Pandora, who left long before its IPO. And yet one of Etsy's founders, with the company from 2005 to 2011, is forgotten? > He was the founder He was one of three founders [1] > and [...] decided to sell or give away enough equity in the company to the point that he no longer held a controlling interest. Thus he no longer plays any part in the company's goings on and rightfully so. So if you don't control 51% of the company, you don't play ANY part in the company's goings on? > If he still held 51% or more of the company and still wished to be a part of Etsy, he easily could have done so. So could have basically every other founder in history. How do you 'still' hold 51% of the company with two co-founders? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etsy#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etsy#History

wilsynet 12y ago

Apple probably wouldn't have been the success that it was without someone like Markula. As for whether it was Kalin's decision and his alone, there is no doubt that it was his and the other co-founders decision to raise money and do it by selling equity. Whether it was his decision to be removed as CEO, that seems less likely. And was he asked to leave or play a different role, I have no idea.

jpmattia 12y ago

> and obviously (because he is no longer in the picture) decided to sell or give away enough equity in the company to the point that he no longer held a controlling interest. Not completely obvious: It is possible that his shares were diluted into oblivion.