[dkyc]

Clearly Figma is providing a valuable product to the market. In part visible here by how people celebrate this decision. But people are celebrating Figma's continued independence without understanding that without the possibility of being acquired for a large amount of money, the funding and incentive situation that resulted in the beloved independent Figma wouldn't exist.

This is not as much about Figma, which is big already and will be fine, but the 100 other potential Figmas that might not even been started yet. They will have more difficulty finding funding, attracting employees with equity, etc., when the scenario 'big tech co acquires company for lots of $' doesn't exist anymore.

Why would anyone go worth at a small company for equity if there's no chance to get liquidity? Why would investors invest? This decision might improve the short-term situation of the market, but over the long-term, I can only see how it benefits the big companies, which rely on today's cashflows / RSUs to attract people.

[krisoft]

> beloved independent Figma wouldn't exist.

Are you saying that the business of "we make a thing and we ask for money from our users for said thing" model cannot work?

> Why would anyone go worth at a small company for equity if there's no chance to get liquidity? Why would investors invest?

Presumably because they hope the company become successful and it sells many licences and they get a share from that pile of money.

[dkyc]

> Are you saying that the business of "we make a thing and we ask for money from our users for said thing" model cannot work?

I'm saying that companies like Figma, which has raised $333 million dollars in venture capital, at up to a $10bn valuation, cannot exist if those investors don't see sufficient options for liquidity.

And given that people strongly value companies like Figma, as evident in this very thread, that would be a bad outcome all in all. The only market participants for whom this wouldn't be a bad outcomes would be big, established businesses that have to fear less startup competition.

[krisoft]

> And given that people strongly value companies like Figma, as evident in this very thread, that would be a bad outcome all in all.

We value Figma the product. I couldn't care less about how much money they raised.

This is why I'm asking if you think it is impossible to make a Figma like product financed from you know the users paying for that product.

[dkyc]

"I value Figma the product, I couldn't care less about how much money they raised" is an argument like "My power comes out the socket, so I couldn't care less about building power plants". It's hard to have one without the other. Figma the product was built with the the money they raised.

[krisoft]

> Figma the product was built with the the money they raised.

Ok. But do you think that is the only way it could have been built? Somehow you are sidestepping that question.