7 ms·

Congrats to to the Wiz team. Wiz is amazing. But, ugh, joining Google will result in less competition and all that entails. Not great for customers. It's a pit

by seanieb 6mo ago

Congrats to to the Wiz team. Wiz is amazing. But, ugh, joining Google will result in less competition and all that entails. Not great for customers. It's a pity going public isn't worth it anymore.

999900000999 6mo ago
Someone else will rise to compete. Then Google will buy them too.
alephnerd 6mo ago
> It's a pity going public isn't worth it anymore. Israeli VCs tend to be uninterested in IPOs in general - too much of an operational headache and it's difficult to exit a position quickly. In most cases an IPO isn't worth it for founders because an IPO means you lose operational control. It's basically the "Rich versus Kings" dichotomy [0]. Edit: can't reply > you can control the share allocations going into an IPO to give you solid voting power Investors do not like that - they want some degree of operational control in order to right the ship if needed. In the early 2010s, IPOs like Tesla and Facebook were on terms that gave outside investors little control on operations and that's why Musk and even Zuckerberg to a certain extent can choose to reorient to a new boondoggle with little-to-no investor pushback. In 2026 if you want to IPO, it will be on the terms of JPMC, GS, etc who are underwriting the IPO. In a private company, it's easier for an investor to offload or get bought out of their position if the founder wants to maintain operational control. > While you’re accountable to a board of directors and theoretically accountable to stockholders, in reality management often runs the show In publicly listed companies, it is magnitudes more difficult to build a board that is aligned with you at a personal level versus in a private company because both the board and strategic shareholders will act as checks against you. > If you’re acquired, you’re giving up ownership and you tend to lose operational control unless you have agreements in place that say otherwise An acquisition happens when both the founders and investors want to exit, and has less operational overhead and due dilligence versus going thru the process of an IPO in the US. > This is counterintuitive to me Well, that's the reality. This is why Stripe, Databricks, and others have remained private for so long despite having hit IPO-level metrics years ago. If you're already generating high 9 to low 10 figures a year in revenue, you can remain private indefinetly and as a founder you would be able to give yourself a compensation package comparable to a public company, but with much less oversight and stress. > Interesting, why is this more true of Israeli VC's as opposed to VC's in other markets Significantly less capital. "Big" funds like YL Ventures, Cyberstarts, and JVP only have an AUM of $800M, $1.4B, and $1.9B respectively. And if you were going to IPO in the US anyhow, why would you even invest in an Israeli fund, which wouldn't have enough people with experience for an IPO. And the handful of Israeli IPOs that happened like SentinelOne or CyberArk weren't that successful. [0] - https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=38550 https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=38550
- moregrist 6mo ago
  > In most cases an IPO isn't worth it for founders because an IPO means you lose operational control. This is counterintuitive to me. If you’re acquired, you’re giving up ownership and you tend to lose operational control unless you have agreements in place that say otherwise. With an IPO it seems like you have a better chance to retain control: you can control the share allocations going into an IPO to give you solid voting power. While you’re accountable to a board of directors and theoretically accountable to stockholders, in reality management often runs the show, at least until the board runs out of patience with bad earnings.
  - SilverElfin 6mo ago
    The problem is if you go public as a small company, it can be hard to survive. You need to meet expectations every time you do an earnings call or watch your stock get crushed, and it’ll never be given another chance. The burdens are also a lot higher in terms of the cost. You don’t really see companies under $10 billion going public anymore. That may continue to be the case, but it’s terrible for entrepreneurs.
- femiagbabiaka 6mo ago
  > Israeli VCs tend to be uninterested in IPOs in general - too much of an operational headache and it's difficult to exit a position quickly. Interesting, why is this more true of Israeli VC's as opposed to VC's in other markets?
  - love2read 6mo ago
    I would assume VC's are dominantly US-based, and US-based VC's tend to be able to weather the landscape of American markets better than foreigners.
    - alephnerd 6mo ago
      Partially. The issue is capital - even Wiz largely raised thanks to Sequoia, Insight Partners, and Index Ventures. American funds are much larger and are able to finance later stage rounds. Most Israeli VC funds end up financing earlier rounds and can't neccesarily participate in later rounds and thus have an incentive to exit earlier.
dlev_pika 6mo ago
> will result in less competition The system working as intended. “Competition is for losers” - Peter Thiel
- tipiirai 6mo ago
  Thiel is an idiot
  - Bombthecat 6mo ago
    But very rich...
    - adamking 6mo ago
      Rich!= smart
    - atmosx 6mo ago
      One has very little to do with the other, contrary to popular belief. Exhibit A from 338 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus_(play) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus_(play)
    - LunaSea 6mo ago
      So are drug dealers
  - palmotea 6mo ago
    >> “Competition is for losers” - Peter Thiel > Thiel is an idiot Sounds more like he's selfish, perhaps to an unusual degree. Monopoly is great for the monopolist. For everyone else? Not so much.
  - ToucanLoucan 6mo ago
    Maybe we should examine as an industry why so many mediocre men get elevated to positions of incredible power and run great businesses into the ground.
    - 6mo ago
SilverElfin 6mo ago
The lack of competition is at this point choice American politicians and the voters. They should be breaking up mega corporations or at least taxing them at really high rates. Instead, it looks like all the existing incumbents will just continue to rule over society. They have capital, monopolies, and the moats of distribution channels and contracts with their current customers. There is no fair competition - they’ll just replicate your clever product easily.
chrisandchris 6mo ago
Maybe, or Wiz will suddenly appear on the graveyard just because reasons? Who knows :)
globular-toast 6mo ago
Google is a public company so in some way they have gone public. I wish people would remember the stock markets were invented for companies to raise funds, not for the private investors to cash out. The public should be allowed to invest in new companies, not just the rich.
- alephnerd 6mo ago
  > The public should be allowed to invest in new companies, not just the rich. Most funds lose money on early stage investing. Allowing non-accredited investors to enter the privete capital is great for experienced investors like me because we can offload assets to less discerning and less experienced casual investors, but this is truly risky for the vast majority of individuals. Hell, even in my own personal portfolio I stick with ETFs and call it a day because returns are good enough without active risk management. > so in some way they have gone public M&A is not an IPO. By that standard any acquisition by Crowdstrike or PANW is an "IPO".

by seanieb 6mo ago

Congrats to to the Wiz team. Wiz is amazing. But, ugh, joining Google will result in less competition and all that entails. Not great for customers. It's a pity going public isn't worth it anymore.

999900000999 6mo ago

Someone else will rise to compete. Then Google will buy them too.

alephnerd 6mo ago

> It's a pity going public isn't worth it anymore. Israeli VCs tend to be uninterested in IPOs in general - too much of an operational headache and it's difficult to exit a position quickly. In most cases an IPO isn't worth it for founders because an IPO means you lose operational control. It's basically the "Rich versus Kings" dichotomy [0]. Edit: can't reply > you can control the share allocations going into an IPO to give you solid voting power Investors do not like that - they want some degree of operational control in order to right the ship if needed. In the early 2010s, IPOs like Tesla and Facebook were on terms that gave outside investors little control on operations and that's why Musk and even Zuckerberg to a certain extent can choose to reorient to a new boondoggle with little-to-no investor pushback. In 2026 if you want to IPO, it will be on the terms of JPMC, GS, etc who are underwriting the IPO. In a private company, it's easier for an investor to offload or get bought out of their position if the founder wants to maintain operational control. > While you’re accountable to a board of directors and theoretically accountable to stockholders, in reality management often runs the show In publicly listed companies, it is magnitudes more difficult to build a board that is aligned with you at a personal level versus in a private company because both the board and strategic shareholders will act as checks against you. > If you’re acquired, you’re giving up ownership and you tend to lose operational control unless you have agreements in place that say otherwise An acquisition happens when both the founders and investors want to exit, and has less operational overhead and due dilligence versus going thru the process of an IPO in the US. > This is counterintuitive to me Well, that's the reality. This is why Stripe, Databricks, and others have remained private for so long despite having hit IPO-level metrics years ago. If you're already generating high 9 to low 10 figures a year in revenue, you can remain private indefinetly and as a founder you would be able to give yourself a compensation package comparable to a public company, but with much less oversight and stress. > Interesting, why is this more true of Israeli VC's as opposed to VC's in other markets Significantly less capital. "Big" funds like YL Ventures, Cyberstarts, and JVP only have an AUM of $800M, $1.4B, and $1.9B respectively. And if you were going to IPO in the US anyhow, why would you even invest in an Israeli fund, which wouldn't have enough people with experience for an IPO. And the handful of Israeli IPOs that happened like SentinelOne or CyberArk weren't that successful. [0] - https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=38550 https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=38550

moregrist 6mo ago
> In most cases an IPO isn't worth it for founders because an IPO means you lose operational control. This is counterintuitive to me. If you’re acquired, you’re giving up ownership and you tend to lose operational control unless you have agreements in place that say otherwise. With an IPO it seems like you have a better chance to retain control: you can control the share allocations going into an IPO to give you solid voting power. While you’re accountable to a board of directors and theoretically accountable to stockholders, in reality management often runs the show, at least until the board runs out of patience with bad earnings.
- SilverElfin 6mo ago
  The problem is if you go public as a small company, it can be hard to survive. You need to meet expectations every time you do an earnings call or watch your stock get crushed, and it’ll never be given another chance. The burdens are also a lot higher in terms of the cost. You don’t really see companies under $10 billion going public anymore. That may continue to be the case, but it’s terrible for entrepreneurs.
femiagbabiaka 6mo ago
> Israeli VCs tend to be uninterested in IPOs in general - too much of an operational headache and it's difficult to exit a position quickly. Interesting, why is this more true of Israeli VC's as opposed to VC's in other markets?
- love2read 6mo ago
  I would assume VC's are dominantly US-based, and US-based VC's tend to be able to weather the landscape of American markets better than foreigners.
  - alephnerd 6mo ago
    Partially. The issue is capital - even Wiz largely raised thanks to Sequoia, Insight Partners, and Index Ventures. American funds are much larger and are able to finance later stage rounds. Most Israeli VC funds end up financing earlier rounds and can't neccesarily participate in later rounds and thus have an incentive to exit earlier.

dlev_pika 6mo ago

> will result in less competition The system working as intended. “Competition is for losers” - Peter Thiel

tipiirai 6mo ago
Thiel is an idiot
- Bombthecat 6mo ago
  But very rich...
  - adamking 6mo ago
    Rich!= smart
  - atmosx 6mo ago
    One has very little to do with the other, contrary to popular belief. Exhibit A from 338 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus_(play) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus_(play)
  - LunaSea 6mo ago
    So are drug dealers
- palmotea 6mo ago
  >> “Competition is for losers” - Peter Thiel > Thiel is an idiot Sounds more like he's selfish, perhaps to an unusual degree. Monopoly is great for the monopolist. For everyone else? Not so much.
- ToucanLoucan 6mo ago
  Maybe we should examine as an industry why so many mediocre men get elevated to positions of incredible power and run great businesses into the ground.
  - 6mo ago

SilverElfin 6mo ago

The lack of competition is at this point choice American politicians and the voters. They should be breaking up mega corporations or at least taxing them at really high rates. Instead, it looks like all the existing incumbents will just continue to rule over society. They have capital, monopolies, and the moats of distribution channels and contracts with their current customers. There is no fair competition - they’ll just replicate your clever product easily.

chrisandchris 6mo ago

Maybe, or Wiz will suddenly appear on the graveyard just because reasons? Who knows :)

globular-toast 6mo ago

Google is a public company so in some way they have gone public. I wish people would remember the stock markets were invented for companies to raise funds, not for the private investors to cash out. The public should be allowed to invest in new companies, not just the rich.

alephnerd 6mo ago
> The public should be allowed to invest in new companies, not just the rich. Most funds lose money on early stage investing. Allowing non-accredited investors to enter the privete capital is great for experienced investors like me because we can offload assets to less discerning and less experienced casual investors, but this is truly risky for the vast majority of individuals. Hell, even in my own personal portfolio I stick with ETFs and call it a day because returns are good enough without active risk management. > so in some way they have gone public M&A is not an IPO. By that standard any acquisition by Crowdstrike or PANW is an "IPO".