Comment by rvnx

Comment by rvnx 17 hours ago

12 replies

Often it happens that VCs buy out companies from funds belonging to a fresh because the selling fund wants to show performance to their investors until "the big one", or move cash one from wealthy pocket to another one.

"You buy me this, next time I save you on that", etc...

"Raised $19 million Series A led by Khosla Ventures + $7 million"

"Today, Bun makes $0 in revenue."

Everything is almost public domain (MIT) and can be forked without paying a single dollar.

Questionable to claim that the technology is the real reason this was bought.

skipants 17 hours ago

It's an acquihire. If Anthropic is spending significant resources, or see that they will have to, to improve Bun internally already it makes a lot of sense. No nefarious undertones required.

An analogous example off the top of my head is Shopify hired Rafael Franca to work on Rails full-time.

raw_anon_1111 17 hours ago

If it was an acquihire, still a lot less slimy than just offering the employees they care about a large compensation package and leaving the company behind as a husk like Amazon, Google and Microsoft have done recently.

  • KK7NIL 17 hours ago

    Is it? What's wrong with hiring talent for a higher salary?

    You have no responsibility for an unrelated company's operations; if that was important to them they could have paid their talent more.

    • JumpCrisscross 17 hours ago

      From the acquirer’s perspective, you’re right. (Bonus: it diminishes your own employees’ ability to leave and fundraise to compete with you.)

      From an ecosystem perspective, acquihires trash the funding landscape. And from the employees’ perspective, as an investor, I’d see them being on an early founding team as a risk going forward. But that isn’t relevant if the individual pay-off is big.

      • KK7NIL 16 hours ago

        > And from the employees’ perspective, as an investor, I’d see them being on an early founding team as a risk going forward.

        Every employee is a flight risk if you don't pay them a competitive salary; that's just FUD from VC bros who are getting their playbook (sell the company to the highest bidder and let early employees get screwed) used against them.

    • dlgeek 16 hours ago

      You want those people specifically. To get them, you need to hire them for a lot more money than you pay your current folks. That causes a lot of resentment with folks and messes up things like salary bands, etc.

      But since they own equity in the current company, you can give them a ton of money by buying out that equity/paying acquisition bonuses that are conditional on staying for specific amounts of time, etc. And your current staff doesn't feel left out because "it's an acquisition" the way they would if you just paid some engineers 10x or 100x what you pay them.

    • raw_anon_1111 9 hours ago

      Who should be paying the founders more? The ones that made a deal with the VCs? They would be hired away from the company.

    • raw_anon_1111 15 hours ago

      I left out the part that the motivations for the acquirers were not to save money or to be slimy. It was the only way to get around overzealous government regulators making it harder to acquirer companies.