• linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    177
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    And then don’t ever, ever go public. Once you go public all the greedy people will insist that you install more greedy people.

        • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s been so long. I hope it just never does, which is a real possibility. The only danger is that it might go public if Gabe Newell dies and whoever his next of kin is wants to cash out.

    • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s less about going public and moreso about the people that have the ability to get to the head of that line via funds.

      Why should Joe Shmoe who’s family fortune is based off mafia and cartel funds get to have say in your company? Just because of the money?

      I don’t get it. I’m probably naive to facets of this process - open to hearing/learning more from more informed people

      • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why should Joe Shmoe who’s family fortune is based off mafia and cartel funds get to have say in your company? Just because of the money?

        Yes. Becasue it is Joe Shmoe’s money that funds the company while it builds the product. Without the money, there is no product.

        I think it’s less about going public

        Going public is a big issue, that is how Joe Shmoe gets his payback. He is the one pushing for the IPO so they can get paid.

        Once that happens, the founders lose what little control they had, the control is always with the people that supply the money in the end.

        • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right I get it, money is needed for growth.

          But maybe we just don’t need to grow so much. What if we let that excess need (due to lack of supply) spill over into competition with people who also don’t want the whole public traded, board room setup?

          Idk taking the money out of business seems impossible no matter how you cut it. Maybe more self hosted and crowd hosted stuff is one solution? What are your thoughts in terms of solutions?

          • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            I have no idea how we move forward.

            Maybe more self hosted and crowd hosted stuff is one solution?

            Currently private finding rounds hinge on convincing a few people who control millions to fund you. Part of that is showing them often highly confidential details of what you are trying to create.

            Crowd finding would be much. much more difficult. Now you have to convince millions of people to give you funding, possibly exposing you to having your ideas stolen before you can develop them.

            • SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Now you have to convince millions of people to give you funding

              There are examples of people doing this. Cooperatives can be owned by the workers or by the customers. They’re usually cheaper too.

              They don’t have the “move fast and break things” mentality however because by nature they don’t have a billionaire sponsors, so it’s harder to complete in a venture capitalist world. It’s when big money dries up, like the great depression, when you’ll see them popping up.

            • rambaroo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s worked to a fair degree in gaming but yeah, not really a viable solution. Especially because the crowd itself is slowly getting robbed of its money.

          • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            the market itself is garbage. its a hot mess of under/over regulation by all the wrong actors.

            tax stock trades. ever single one. tax stock ownership. tax the everliving fuck out of the stock market.

        • wtfeweguys@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The solution I’m most interested in is eliminating the friction to seed/early stage funding coming directly from interested user communities and even better would be to also draw as much of the labor pool as possible from the same group.

          I think this eliminates most of the misalignments in stakeholder interest.

          We already have equity crowdfunding in the states. We need more innovation in crowdfunding platforms.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good, healthy, properly running companies that don’t owe their existence to a lot of external forces don’t go public.

        Going public only pays off the stakeholders in the company, like venture capitalists or employees that were under salaried and offered stock as a bonus.

    • MondayToFriday@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Once you accept venture capital, you’re pretty much down the path to going public, because the investors have an expectation of realizing their gains if the company is successful.