> If the end game for the investors is merely further investment, yes they > can cash out... but this is pretty similar to a pyramid scheme.
A company gets "investments" throughout its lifecycle, from angels to IPO to acquisition to bonds. It makes no sense to classify a need or desire to get "investment" as a pyramid scheme. Are you saying Skype is/was a pyramid scheme because they sold to eBay? Even if the "scheme" of the founders and shareholders were to sell their company to a larger entity as soon as they can? > If all that really happens is the final round of investors pay a lot for > company that provides no end user value, then the company would hardly be > considered a success. If a company pays too much, that's their problem. Nobody holds a gun to their head. One way to make a company attractive to potential investors, acquirers, IPO, etc is to make it provide good customer value -- a built-in, countervailing force. > And we are talking about the success of the company, not the profiteering > of the founders. > When has investors getting a return on their investments become "profiteering"? -- Kontra http://counternotions.com ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
