What multiple? I honestly haven't seen it. What I did see was this, however:
> Those terms gave Lightspeed the right of first refusal to invest in a future round of funding and the ability to increase its share of the company in that round. Lightspeed could also take 50 percent of the future round.
That is the issue and that would make a target less desirable for VC investment.
By multiple, do you mean the voting leverage? Because note that this happened after Lightspeed invested and allowed the VC to invest, rather than blocking it. To be very clear: the 10:1 voting ratio was decidedly not what blocked outside VC. The ROFR blocked outside VC. The 10:1 founder voting ratio was the solution.
Typically, "multiple" in this context means a liquidation preference - if one existed here, it was not detailed in the NYTimes article. My bet is you could probably find this information in the S1, (located here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1564408/000119312517... ) but if you want me to read that, you will have to pay my hourly.
> Those terms gave Lightspeed the right of first refusal to invest in a future round of funding and the ability to increase its share of the company in that round. Lightspeed could also take 50 percent of the future round.
That is the issue and that would make a target less desirable for VC investment.
By multiple, do you mean the voting leverage? Because note that this happened after Lightspeed invested and allowed the VC to invest, rather than blocking it. To be very clear: the 10:1 voting ratio was decidedly not what blocked outside VC. The ROFR blocked outside VC. The 10:1 founder voting ratio was the solution.
Typically, "multiple" in this context means a liquidation preference - if one existed here, it was not detailed in the NYTimes article. My bet is you could probably find this information in the S1, (located here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1564408/000119312517... ) but if you want me to read that, you will have to pay my hourly.