Entrepreneur and operator

San Francisco, CA
Joined June 2007
Include

Only show posts containing:

Exclude

Hide posts containing:

Time range
-
Minimum likes
Replying to @dens
I still think about early foursquare days in 2010 NYC
166
Replying to @muneeb
Stacks is in a great position for this
3
144
Replying to @t4t5
Can we get the poker client and the eBay style marketplace? Any archaeological digging we can do on that?
1
240
Replying to @RobertDaleSmith
What 🤯
1
411
Replying to @Rhynotic
trevorbtc.eth
175
Replying to @alexandr_wang
thoughtcrime is great
1
1
358
Replying to @rodarmor
embrace the slop
2
6
915
Replying to @eriktorenberg
Wow what a list
174
Who is coming to Money 20/20? Would love to link up.
1
1
2
423
Replying to @jacobfranek
Well said!
1
148
The logical gap is assuming that earning a follow-on guarantees access An investor could be the company’s most helpful backer and still get squeezed out by the new lead Pro rata rights protect against that disconnect between contribution and leverage
Ali Partovi
@apartoviOct 13
Answer: pro rata without the right. @Neo ditched long-term pro rata rights last year, and we still do big follow-ons in our winners. We just have to earn each allocation by being good partners rather than resting on an entitlement. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar!
10
17
3,620
Pro rata is not just about economic upside, it's also about protecting early investors from dilution I get the argument that it doesn't incentivize participation and support if the investors already have an allocation locked in I just think it's wrong Even the best investors, by and large, do not add much value and taking away pro rata isn't going to change that Investor have the incentive to help their portfolio raise the next round, regardless Taking away pro rata just makes the economics of investing early worse When it's only going to get harder and harder to invest early and get returns There's going to be 100x more founders and people who otherwise wouldn't have started companies 10 years ago in the game because there's no other jobs Meaning we need to incentivize more vetting and investing early for the ecosystem to thrive
12
1
23
3,665
Replying to @rsg
No worries, I'm using them interchangeably here The main point is making it more beneficial to take risk early for capital
1
110
Replying to @rsg
Talking about larger asset class, became far more mainstream in past 5 years Pro rata always important Peter Thiel famously lost over $1 billion not taking pro rata in 2nd round of Facebook Make it harder for the earliest investors to get a good return, less people invest early Make it harder for (small) new funds to be successful, you have less new funds
1
251
If you optimize for avoiding conflict in life you will never achieve anything of meaning in this world
Ali Partovi
@apartoviOct 11
Long-term pro rata rights are on the wrong side of history, and can lead to conflict between startup founders and their earliest backers. We at @Neo decided to ditch long-term pro rata rights: 👇
13
1
30
4,968
Now people want to get rid of Pro Rata? 🤦‍♂️ I think Silicon Valley is underestimating how many ppl are quitting Angel investing past few years because the returns are so abysmal 10 years ago it seemed like Angel investing was the easiest way to make money on earth
15
26
5,479
Replying to @apartovi @neo
A world without conflict over the things that matter is a world I don’t wanna live in
1
243
Here is an idea: Let’s take away more and more benefits for the people who are earliest and take the biggest risk in believing in a founder and an idea when others don’t I’m sure you can see where this is going
10
20
4,078
Replying to @conconconling
When there’s fewer and fewer benefits to being early in the company, you will see that fewer and fewer people take the risk of doing it at all
1
231