zlacker

Which is a lesson in how VC can easily destroy a viable, profitable business with a "money-chasing-money" strategy.

>>nickba+(OP)
How do you figure that?

1) VCs own hardly any shared of Twitter[1]

2) Stock grants are used as compensation for people working at Twitter, NOT something that benefits investors (except in the sense people are working at the company the investors invested in I guess).

It's easy to blame VCs for everything, but I don't see how this makes any sense at all in this case.

[1] http://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter-stock-owner...

>>nl+R1
Who is in line for a buyout before other investors and at what multiplier? That information is usually not public and can be more important than what percentage of ownership a particular investor has.

>>nickba+(OP)
Twitter IPO'd over 3 years ago.

>>nickba+f5
They are a public company, with a single class of shareholder. They can all choose to buy or sell via the public market.

Your comments would make some sense if they were pre-IPO.

>>nl+R1
Didn't USV invest in Twitter? Did they cash out after IPO?

>>EGreg+LK
>Didn't USV invest in Twitter?

They sure did. Fred Wilson (USV partner) has talked about it (Twitter as a portfolio company of USV) many times on his blog avc.com .

>Did they cash out after IPO?

Not sure.

>>vram22+I41
Well otherwise what does it mean if they have a tiny part of an $18B company?

>>nl+Gn
Derp, you're right. I'm an idiot.

>>EGreg+4F1
Ok got you. I had not read the OP. Interesting.