| > how the FTC's policies can influence this By de-incentivizing M&A, and checking larger competitors to VC darlings by hanging the Damcoles sword of antitrust. A decade ago Marc Andressen was lobbying Obama to work on this [0][1] In Andressen's and much of his peer's eyes, most mid-late stage startups should be IPOing sooner than they actually are. And to a certain extent he isn't wrong. Personally, I don't buy Andressen's argument - there is a reason we added added checks and balances in the IPO process. > Could you explain this To go public (just like any other fundraising stage), early stage ownership stakes tend to be diluted in order to attract later investors. IPOs are a fundraising technique like any other, but the benefits tends to bias towards funds that target late stage or roadshow investors at the expense of early investors. In the eyes of Andressen and his peers the IPO process needs to be simplified in order to make it easier for mid-stage startups to go public AND the incentive structures need to be changed so early stage investors (read VCs like A16Z) get outsized benefit. For most funds, this really doesn't matter, but for the mega funds like A16Z, YC, Founders Fund, etc this is a make-or-break policy as most of their portfolio are mid-late stage startups that have been pushing off IPOs because they are too small for the current market, and taking acquisitions at what a number of early stage investors view as a suboptimal price - doesn't matter to the founder because they have cash, but it does to large early stage investors. A direct listing or SPAC would be the ideal "IPO" method envisioned, but that has been cracked down on as well (and rightfully so tbh) [0] - https://www.cnbc.com/2013/07/11/andreessen-talks-tech-boom-b... [1] - https://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/5837638/the-ipo-is-dying-marc-... |