|
|
|
|
|
by gwd
323 days ago
|
|
There is actually a sense to the dilution. If I have something I think is worth $10m, and I'm asking someone else to give me another $10m, doesn't it make sense for that person to own 50% of the company? Why would any investor give you $10m wile receiving no ownership of the company? How are you going to give these newer investors ownership, if you don't reduce the ownership of everyone else? The claim in the tweet was that they got 1% of the value of the diluted shares: e.g., on paper they should own 1% of $100m, but somehow they only got $10k out of it. There does seem to be a culture of this going around now -- the VC version of "Hollywood accounting". In a lot of situations it doesn't make much sense to me -- is it really worth poisoning the well of startup talent for the VCs to get $95m instead of $85m? |
|
If the value of a company is $10m and the company asks an investor to give $10m in exchange for equity, the investor should own 100%.
If the value of a company is $20m and the company asks an investor to give $10m in exchange for equity, the investor should own 50%.