So much of the internet famous generation got rich by doing something, giving it away for free, then making a pile of money from giving it away for free. From bloggers to vloggers to streamers to influencers to banksy to almost every tech company. The outlier of sorts is open-source developers.
To be honest I have no answers to the problem, and personally find most of the answers that do get thrown around dont pass the most basic of logic tests. So like you the only option I see is for developers to make the change, stop the freedom and the free ride.
The vast majority of open-source enthusiasts I have encountered, 99% of whom have never looked at a line of code, are advocates of open-source software for free beer reasons not for freedom reason.
There is almost a point where, like all language, the original meaning becomes obsolete and a new one takes over.
Those headlines look silly now, but they ... were featured in reputable publications at the time, said by reputable and in some cases domain expert people at the time.
I say that not to be one of those "mainstream media blah blah" people, its just that when it comes to new things or change in general nobody has a f'ing clue.
Greedily hoarding your $10mil while your children struggle to make ends meet before inheriting it all at 65 (because you are probably going to live to your 90's) is not really a very good solution.
Family offices, directed by the patriarch / matriarch should be a bigger thing.
Can confirm without any references etc that I have found it to be vastly superior to all other syncs. Top of the pile for me is that it handles small changes in large files without reuploading the entire thing. That said, I havent used it for years.
And this is why the IPO market is broken. VC's are riding startups through multiple rounds of funding for way longer than before then dumping the late stage mature companies onto the public markets.
Those that locked in their returns, recieved the proceeds of thier 1.4million shares of $142.8 million into their accounts just before the bell rang for the market open. The bell rang everyone cheered and the shares they just sold are worth $196 million. Regular joe with a robin hood account makes the money and the CEO/VC loses money ... who knows more about the company though?
> Even if you completely believe in the future of the company, locking in returns and getting some liquidity
Worth it if you get $10 a share instead of $100? All about value. Why not dump some out in the previous 8 funding rounds? The reason is not many VCs would be in there cashing out the guys from the previous rounds, or would only do so at a heavy discount or to gain control over the company.
No shock at all this is how the game works! You slap out a float, ideally small enough so that the supply and demand inbalance pushes the price up.
So 3.7mil shares were issued at $102, and opened at $140, so that is a 'cost' to the company of $140 million + underwriting fees etc (probably another $30mil + the 700k shares they have options on at issue price). Additionally insiders dumped out 1.4mil shares at the issue price.
Now execs + VC's have a 'liquid' market to sell or short against without paying the high costs for goldmans to price you up a private hedge which is the whole point of an IPO.
Its litterally writting into the offering - 'The principal purposes of this offering are to increase our capitalization and financial flexibility and to create a public market for our Class A common stock.'
Every IPO is an exit strategy or a refusal to run a balanced budget. If you have cash flow you can invest for free and compound the growth internally. If you have responsible financial management you can tap the bond markets for basically free.
VC's want a 10 bagger - they have had it and more - is Duolingo going to be valued at $65B in a couple of years? I doubt it.
This is the most retarded silicon valley vc tech bubble comment I have ever. There are 11million companies in the US, many will fail making money let alone being 'strong' companies that drop $10 mil a year.
If the numbers are so great and they have so much money at hand why are the people who run the business selling some of their share? Possibly due to high market valuations of all kinds and a very attractive price to dump a well established business that you have milked the most out of to date?