Curious question. If YC started today, with the exact same manifesto but in the current environment as opposed to the one in 2005, could they still have been as successful?
Are there a pre-set number of board seats or can new seats be issued as new investors emerge?
How did Mark Zuckerberg maintain control of the board, whilst still receiving huge VC investments? So I imagine it something like, he owns majority of the board but not majority of the shares?
Crazy high valuations—investors are paying huge sums for small stakes. If you convince people your startup is worth ten billion dollars, you can raise a billion yet retain 90% ownership.
I still don't fully understand what a VC has to gain by eliminating the founders?
So as long as the board is owned by non-founders, a sale can be forced even though the founders disagree and want to continue operating ... even if the sale will leave the founders with nothing? ... that seems so diabolical!
yes at $5m they will get nothing, but at $4m they won't be in debt.
5x is really a rip-off, but 2x (double-dip) is quiet common.
Liquidation preference at its core is an instrument to protect the investor. Imagine the following scenario:
An Investor gives you $1m for 50% of your company. A year later it sells for $1m (because it wasn't a hit).
The investor just lost $500k you made +$500k.
Not sure how much this is worth, I only recently discovered Hacker News (and am 17 also), but if you're having trouble coming up with ideas, it's probably best to find a co-founder who is really good at coming up with ideas....
One of the most common things you here from successful "entrepreneurs" is that they have an overflow of ideas and not enough time to work on all of them.
Thanks for the reply.
I'm working on the co-founder thing, it's part of the reason for going to college.
And yeah I hear that a lot, which is what makes me think I'm just too critical of my own ideas. I really couldn't be that bad.
