JamesPeterson

The ICANN administration is notorious for its motives. While a public organization, many of its decisions are clearly to benefit their own and are clearly not in the public benefit.

Option to provide lock-screen option to allow guests to login using their iCloud account.

In Australia, we almost match this by (a) having a "Low Income Tax Offset" (being fazed out in favour of an $18k tax free bracket) and (b) having a wide-reaching 'Centrelink' social security scheme. One of our greatest worries as a nation is that we're very dependent on such structural measures, but that we're using a medium-term cyclical benefit (the mining boom) to pay for it.

Typically, they'll be offered options to buy stock for essentially nothing. Often there will be tricks though - for example it might take a couple of years in employment to be able to exercise all of the options.

The shareholders control the board, and the board controls management. Thus, unhappy shareholders will mean new management.

In FB's case however, Zuck still controls (through proxy) the majority of votes; Zuck cannot be ousted.

There are other problems with a non-performing stock too; employee morale may be (and is increasingly?) tightly related to the share options they own. If management is not performing well and costing their employees money (!) that can ruin morale.

This doesn't just involve Facebook; currently the market is pretty bullish on web companies. It can quickly turn bearish, restricting the capital that currently flows so free.

I'd recommend hooking up with a local angels syndicate, so that diversify the risk. Also, bigger pockets (ie across the whole syndicate rather than just one angel) attracts better investment opportunities.

Have a look at Gust.com to see if anyone is in your area.

For a further push into index funds (vs stock picking) look up the "efficient markets hypothesis" and relate it to portfolio theory. Our markets are very reasonably semi-strong; over any considerable time period, the chances of you beating the market as an individual on a risk-adjusted basis are essentially nil.

Look for funds' fees and tracking errors before choosing.

I imagine the opportunity for Google to offer this sort of "private search" (perhaps w/ complementing premium features) via mass licenses to (nervous) big corps would be one worth perusing. I imagine also it might be worth those big corps' money.

The firm holds a longer, (financially) non-optimal view; their handling stakeholders would be different if they were gunning for an exit. Instead, Wordpress seem to be presenting for (private; less volatile) investment (but I don't know what for?).

Commercial banks offer what you're seeking. In our local scene when one of our cash-flow+ portfolio companies is seeking further capital for expansion, often debt is a better (cheaper) option than taking on VC investment (if they're CF+ they shouldn't be seeking angel terms!). We've actually had a big bank actively trying to sell such debt.

If you're CF+ and need capital, talk to your bank.

When Skype was first sold to eBay, eBay did a whoozy and made bad assumptions resulting in them buying Skype without the core IP.

This later cost them a gazillion dollars after a court process, and the whole world realized they needed to watch their backs just that little more.

I'd recommend exchanging pre-existing IP with the company for your founding stock, otherwise nobody will want to go near you.

If you have a model that beats the market it some way, you'll profit by making deals that are only available because the market does not understand them as well as your model.

If the market understands your model, you may as well throw it into an index; all opportunity for such deals will be absorbed by the market if it knows of them.

Your aim is to be better than the market.

This is not an ideal fundraising instrument for a startup, because it is likely the fair rate of interest will be higher than the loan amount itself (ie >100%).

For a pre-alpha startup, think equity. Any investor will want their chance at a return which reflects the opportunity costs and risks of their investment.

Edit: stock makes plenty of sense for investment. The purchase of equity is the same as buying a stake of future cash flows, whether this is as growth or dividends. Note that responsible directorship applies.

Your analogy between the startup and music industries draws true. Not everything will be successful, but it's important that those involved can have a reasonable chance to be rewarded. Both of the above sectors are centered around firms designed to manage risk - VCs for startups, and labels for artists. VCs are generally fulfilling their purpose much better than music labels are.