← Back to context

Comment by nickbauman

9 years ago

Which is a lesson in how VC can easily destroy a viable, profitable business with a "money-chasing-money" strategy.

9 comments

nickbauman

Reply
nl  9 years ago

How do you figure that?

1) VCs own hardly any shared of Twitter[1]

2) Stock grants are used as compensation for people working at Twitter, NOT something that benefits investors (except in the sense people are working at the company the investors invested in I guess).

It's easy to blame VCs for everything, but I don't see how this makes any sense at all in this case.

[1] http://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-owner...

  • nickbauman  9 years ago

    Who is in line for a buyout before other investors and at what multiplier? That information is usually not public and can be more important than what percentage of ownership a particular investor has.

    • nl  9 years ago

      They are a public company, with a single class of shareholder. They can all choose to buy or sell via the public market.

      Your comments would make some sense if they were pre-IPO.

      1 reply →

  • EGreg  9 years ago

    Didn't USV invest in Twitter? Did they cash out after IPO?

    • vram22  9 years ago

      >Didn't USV invest in Twitter?

      They sure did. Fred Wilson (USV partner) has talked about it (Twitter as a portfolio company of USV) many times on his blog avc.com .

      >Did they cash out after IPO?

      Not sure.

      2 replies →