> I'd rather have 60% of a small exit than 80% of a $0 exit.
60% is one funding deal away from becoming a minority stake, while 80% leaves room to do another deal while still maintaining control. Money is not the only concern here.
I'm not sure why you think they are different things. Without control, you cannot direct the company towards an exit. Or away from a bad exit. Or away from another deal that will further dilute your stake. You have to trust the majority holders to do all those things.
Maybe I've just been around for too many decades, and seen too many shady deals proposed. But my trust comes slowly -- control issues come first in my mind.
Well, they are literally different things and yeah, I'm caught up on that. I'm trying to figure this out too.
I've known of founders who wouldn't take a deal because they liked being, to use Zuckerberg's honorific, CEO, bitch. And then they rode that into the ground.
I think you're saying they're two forms of the same thing. That's true but they're not two reversible forms. Moreover, there is no control after exit.
So the point is that taking a little less at a concrete exit might be worth more than taking a little more of a sleigh ride.
60% is one funding deal away from becoming a minority stake, while 80% leaves room to do another deal while still maintaining control. Money is not the only concern here.