Feels like a frenzy!
To me, the willingness to spend 20bn for a different architecture speaks to the competition in the market, across the big players, which doesn’t seem to be factored into their valuations.
Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
111–120 of 184 posts
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh FFS 0.1% of this acquisition is $20M. 0.5% is $100M. Junior to senior equity lies in this range. They'll be more than fine. They'll be 1%ers to 0.1%ers after taxes, yeesh. It's never ever enough. is it?
Those numbers are not realistic. At a company at this stage (series E I think?), you’ll be lucky to have 0.01% as an engineer. Most importantly, there is no guarantee there will be any payout at all. It’s not an acquisition and we don’t know the terms.
Series E was just 3 months ago. $2M for 3 months work seems fantastic to me. Series B equity was anytime through early 2021. This is a fantastic outcome for everyone in Groq.
What I'm reading here is 100% envy and resentment of their success. But that only works if you're already rich or president, preferably both for best results.
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#113This has nothing to do with antitrust. Not like the current administration is going to enforce it anyways. Nvidia simply wants Groq’s tech and leadership without the burden of 500+ employees.
Nvidia should still pay the 500+ employees their due, based on their percentage of ownership.
"should" or "will"?
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#114I don't think you can treat owners of the same shares differently in the way this is suggesting. The VC shareholders and the employee shareholders are probably on equal footing and getting the same price. VCs will own preferred but I doubt that is enough to windfall them at the expense of the common shareholders. So if VCs are getting paid a certain share price, employees with vested stock almost certainly are gettin…
EXCELLENT analysis Ossama
>"Non-exclusive" means no monopoly concerns (anyone can license Groq's tech)
- except that you can bet only Nvidia gets the absolute top of the line architechture and design - - - - - all others get 2nd best or worse.
>The "non-exclusive" label is legal fiction. When you acquire all the IP and hire everyone who knows >how to use it, exclusivity doesn't matter.
But the “non exclusive” part is what significantly weakens any case the US DOJ may consider bringing forth, if at all..
If I was in the Nvidia camp I would be admiring how brillant the strategy was all formulated, in fact, I have to believe that IP attorney's were consulted on how best to avoid DOJ scrutiny.
On the other hand, there will be those who can see how this limits competition. It would be interesting to have some of our HN attorneys weigh on on this deal.
As you said about the remaining employees: . . . Their equity is worthless. . . got nothing while Chamath made $2B. Is Chamath a conniving scoundrel ? I'll let others judge. Maybe someday we'll see Zuckerberg and Chamath in the ring together - - Elon seems to have bowed out.
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#115I don't think you can treat owners of the same shares differently in the way this is suggesting. The VC shareholders and the employee shareholders are probably on equal footing and getting the same price. VCs will own preferred but I doubt that is enough to windfall them at the expense of the common shareholders. So if VCs are getting paid a certain share price, employees with vested stock almost certainly are gettin…
It’s also possible that both are correct, and the deal is actually illegal. It’s pretty common for deals to push close to the line to extract maximum value for one set of parties, and sometimes this is misjudged.
I guess we just need to wait and see if the common holders are happy or sue.
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I think you are right here. The purchase price is high enough for all parties to be get return on their shares, and whilst there will be a waterfall for who gets paid first, I doubt many people will be unhappy with this deal. Unlike Windsurf... who's 2nd employee only got 1% of what their shares were worth ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44673296 )
i thought so at first, but I did some digging and changed my mind. it's possible the following is how it goes: - secondary transaction with the preferred shareholders (VCs) at some price that implies a 20b valuation - founders quit and get new employment agreements - some cash is transferred to the company as a license fee - no acquisition means no DOJ approval in this scenario the headline can be $20b but the cash e…
Don’t the founders (and the board) still have fiduciary duty to the common holders?
You can’t stop the founders from leaving, but selling the crown jewel IP in a transaction that doesn’t benefit the shareholders seems a stretch.
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
i thought so at first, but I did some digging and changed my mind. it's possible the following is how it goes: - secondary transaction with the preferred shareholders (VCs) at some price that implies a 20b valuation - founders quit and get new employment agreements - some cash is transferred to the company as a license fee - no acquisition means no DOJ approval in this scenario the headline can be $20b but the cash e…
Don’t the founders (and the board) still have fiduciary duty to the common holders? You can’t stop the founders from leaving, but selling the crown jewel IP in a transaction that doesn’t benefit the shareholders seems a stretch.
[deleted]
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This comment is not cool, and is not welcome on HN. You had a history of guidelines-breaking comments and moderator warnings up until a few years ago, and we've not seen any comments from you until the past month or so, and now you're back into those bad old patterns. You are of course welcome to participate here. But this is only a place where people want to participate because we have clear guidelines, and most peo…
Sure thing. Was the comment so grotesque?
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#119I don't think you can treat owners of the same shares differently in the way this is suggesting. The VC shareholders and the employee shareholders are probably on equal footing and getting the same price. VCs will own preferred but I doubt that is enough to windfall them at the expense of the common shareholders. So if VCs are getting paid a certain share price, employees with vested stock almost certainly are gettin…
It’s also possible that both are correct, and the deal is actually illegal. It’s pretty common for deals to push close to the line to extract maximum value for one set of parties, and sometimes this is misjudged. I guess we just need to wait and see if the common holders are happy or sue.
If you join a startup, be ready to hire a lawyer.
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment is not cool, and is not welcome on HN. You had a history of guidelines-breaking comments and moderator warnings up until a few years ago, and we've not seen any comments from you until the past month or so, and now you're back into those bad old patterns. You are of course welcome to participate here. But this is only a place where people want to participate because we have clear guidelines, and most peo…
Sure thing. Was the comment so grotesque?
It doesn’t have to be “grotesque” to be in breach of the guidelines. The guidelines ask us to be kind, to avoid swipes and sneers, and to converse curiously.
If it was a one off we’d be content to leave it flagged and move on but we’re talking about a pattern from years ago that seems to be resuming, and we need you to end that pattern now, thanks.