zlacker

[return to "Anthropic acquires Bun"]
1. andrew+P4[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:28:07
>>ryanvo+(OP)
I’ll be honest, while I have my doubts about the match of interests and cohesion between an AI company and a JS runtime company I have to say this is the single best acquisition announcement blog post I’ve seen in 20 years or so.

Very direct, very plain and detailed. They cover all the bases about the why, the how, and what to expect. I really appreciate it.

Best of luck to the team and hopefully the new home will support them well.

◧◩
2. raw_an+i8[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:41:20
>>andrew+P4
But how is another company that is also VC backed and losing money providing stability for Bun?

How long before we hear about “Our Amazing Journey”?

On the other hand, I would rather see someone like Bun have a successful exit where the founders seem to have started out with a passion project, got funding, built something out they were excited about and then exit than yet another AI company by non technical founders who were built with the sole purpose of getting funding and then exit.

◧◩◪
3. rvnx+H9[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:46:27
>>raw_an+i8
Often it happens that VCs buy out companies from funds belonging to a fresh because the selling fund wants to show performance to their investors until "the big one", or move cash one from wealthy pocket to another one.

"You buy me this, next time I save you on that", etc...

"Raised $19 million Series A led by Khosla Ventures + $7 million"

"Today, Bun makes $0 in revenue."

Everything is almost public domain (MIT) and can be forked without paying a single dollar.

Questionable to claim that the technology is the real reason this was bought.

◧◩◪◨
4. raw_an+qb[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:53:57
>>rvnx+H9
If it was an acquihire, still a lot less slimy than just offering the employees they care about a large compensation package and leaving the company behind as a husk like Amazon, Google and Microsoft have done recently.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. KK7NIL+zc[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:57:34
>>raw_an+qb
Is it? What's wrong with hiring talent for a higher salary?

You have no responsibility for an unrelated company's operations; if that was important to them they could have paid their talent more.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. JumpCr+zk[view] [source] 2025-12-02 19:29:18
>>KK7NIL+zc
From the acquirer’s perspective, you’re right. (Bonus: it diminishes your own employees’ ability to leave and fundraise to compete with you.)

From an ecosystem perspective, acquihires trash the funding landscape. And from the employees’ perspective, as an investor, I’d see them being on an early founding team as a risk going forward. But that isn’t relevant if the individual pay-off is big.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. KK7NIL+uq[view] [source] 2025-12-02 19:52:38
>>JumpCr+zk
> And from the employees’ perspective, as an investor, I’d see them being on an early founding team as a risk going forward.

Every employee is a flight risk if you don't pay them a competitive salary; that's just FUD from VC bros who are getting their playbook (sell the company to the highest bidder and let early employees get screwed) used against them.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. JumpCr+lr[view] [source] 2025-12-02 19:55:57
>>KK7NIL+uq
> Every employee is a flight risk if you don't pay them a competitive salary

Not relevant to acquihires, who typically aren’t hired away with promises of a salary but instead large signing bonuses, et cetera, and aren’t typically hired individually but as teams. (You can’t solve key man problems with compensation alone, despite what every CEO compensation committee will lead one to think.)

> that's just FUD

What does FUD mean in this context? I’m precisely relaying a personal anecdote.

[go to top]