Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Usually, "shut down" implies that the company failed. Of course it failed, from the standpoint of the VCs, at least. It just didn't run out of cash. That doesn't say anything one way or the other about the business model of taking a percentage of salary, which is what is under discussion. > It says right in the article that WeWork offered the founder $5M in comp Again, not particularly relevant, other than an indic…
I misread your comment, I didn't understand you were asking how the exit is relevant to the business model, and you're right, it's not. the primary principle at play is making money, on all sides Well the thing is that, when pitching or promoting their companies, and especially when rallying employees, startup founders pay a lot of lip service to other things like "the vision," "the mission," and "changing the world.…
...and the whole point of pitching or promoting a company is...making money!
> "changing the world."
That isn't falsified by putting 5 million dollars in exchange for dropping a VC-funded startup. It may well be easier to change the world with that kind of money absent the attached strings.
> They don't say "by the way guys I'll happily disband this whole thing the instant someone offers me a wad of cash."
Well, a big enough wad of cash. They don't have to. This is one of those "well duh" situations.
This is actually a business risk, that one or more of your key/critical employees will get lured by an offer they can't refuse. (As I keep trying to keep this on-topic) This is particlarly so for founders with unproven business models, who VCs might otherwise pressure into much less attractive equity/control positions.
> fully trumps every other principle one holds
This is a strawman. You've implied violation of principles you hold (without stating them outright) but haven't demostrated violation of any of that founder's principles. I've pointed out at least one that we can presume that was upheld, in the return of assets.