[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.