8 ms·
[flagged]
by chapz 7mo ago
[flagged]
- grey-area 7mo agoMaybe he prefers to burn someone else’s money.
- mlnj 7mo agoDiversify.
- CamouflagedKiwi 7mo agoWhy burn his own money when he can get VC money instead?
- flakeoil 7mo agoIf he believes in the product he could have kept 100% of his company.
- AmazingTurtle 7mo agoMost of the time it's not about the money VCs send into it but the credibility that this brings. It looks a lot more mature when your idea is backed by a distribution of wealthy people.
- soerxpso 7mo agoHe kept 80%. The other 20% is owned by 8 different VCs. Seems like he's still in control. There's value in using other people's money instead of your own because it might make him less emotionally risk-averse in how he manages it.
- DANmode 7mo ago100% of something without any measurable adoption or scale can suck.
- chapz 7mo agoThe point is more - it's primary goal is not to enable developers to do more and better, it's primary goal is to _maximize shareholder value_. Important thing to keep in mind.
- raincole 7mo agoYou know even Google looked for external investors for Waymo, right? Yeah, Google. That company with more than $100B in cash. Even they know that it's better to burn someone else's money.
- DANmode 7mo agoCertain amount of risk per initiative.
- abustamam 7mo agoThe world's richest man solicited investors and other people's money to buy Twitter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon... I think that's just how rich people play the game. Why use your own money when you can use other people's money?