Why do the Slack Founders Stewart Butterfield and Cal Henderson own so (relatively) little of the company’s shares?


This post is by Jason Lemkin from SaaStr


Click here to view on the original site: Original Post




Look, a lot of rounds of financing — all the way to a Series H —at almost any valuation do add up to significant dilution: Beyond that, Slack took additional dilution from its pivot from a gaming company to the Slack we know today, a communications company. They sold 25% to Accel (and more to other investors) before the tilt … so in a way, they took 30%+ dilution before Slack became Slack. I find that dilution picks you in many ways. Each company has a different path. Different types of competition, different market dynamics, different amounts of virality, etc. Both founders will shortly be phenomenally wealthy, and more importantly, I think more wealthy that they even needed to be. The last company they co-founded together, Flickr? They sold it for $40m. Even with all the dilution, they will make 250x more on Slack than Flickr. Maybe much more than . So it’s all good.
And finally, as a side note to other founders, Stewart was granted more long-term options/shares as CEO later. This is fairly common when a founder CEO does an amazing job, stays on (doesn’t bring on an outside CEO), and is substantially diluted. The VCs often give the CEO more shares (with a new, longer vesting period). More on that here: 5 Interesting Learnings From Slack. As It Gets Ready to IPO. | SaaStr and more here: MoreSaaStr.com View original question on quora The post Why do the Slack Founders Stewart Butterfield and Cal Henderson own so (relatively) little of the company’s shares? appeared first on SaaStr.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.