| We started Mullvad VPN in 2009 for political reasons. My cofounder Daniel and I viewed it as direct political action through entrepreneurship. In particular we wanted to protest Swedish surveillance legislation (FRA), which is partly why we chose a Swedish name for the service. So far we have refused at least five serious offers of investment and acquisition, because we would rather retain control, even if that meant slow growth or obscurity. As time went by the company grew and so did our capabilities to affect change. So far we have reinvested all profit in things we believe move the needle in the right direction. Some are direct donations, others are pure investments, others should probably be classified as "high-risk bets that might make things better, but not necessarily for us". The fact that we retain 100% ownership in the company enables us to engage in strategic behavior that is unavailable to competitors who accept outside investment. All VCs have investment horizons. If we invited one onboard they would eventually want us to sell, or commit to handing out dividends. We'd rather build some kind of institution. Even better if we can obsolete VPN services as a concept. Then we could move on to other problems. It's not like there's a shortage. We have explored the idea of moving our shares to a foundation. Unfortunately that is an action that can't be undone. It's kind of the point, but by retaining the shares we retain maximum strategic flexibility. Edit: I don't identify as a social entrepreneur, but thought you might enjoy the story anyway, as we're also sort of optimizing for impact. Whatever that means. |