vikramhaer

The important thing you mentioned is the same news as the fact that they have exclusive rights. Exclusivity means other outlets can't show it.

I don't think 'selling stuff with a margin' was ever their business model. In almost every aspect of their business they act as a platform (platform to sell things to consumers, host photos/ music/ etc, watch/ listen/ subscribe to content, AWS). I feel like Prime's goal is to encourage customers to stay within the Amazon ecosystem and although its a revenue stream, it doesn't necessarily mean that 'monetization is now tied to walking the fine line between positive experience and pissing people off'.

I believe you might be thinking about a non-compete vs. a non-disclosure agreement?

As i'm not too familiar with email as a standard, could you elaborate on how this undermines it?

Could you elaborate on what you mean by weirdly dystopian? I don't feel like I got the same vibe.

Not sure I see how it's relevant to the discussion... The article you linked talks about Woodman's stock grants, and mentions how stock option repricing is used primarily by companies with volatile stock prices. The price hit the stock took would lower the value of Woodman's grants, so I don't feel like that article really dampens the main point in any way... Would you mind clarifying?

Agree that bullshit offers need to be weeded out, but I don't think it would make sense for an Acquiror to propose a price without sufficient information to base that price on. Justin's post mentions bullshit offers as not putting time pressure or promise of term sheet delivery, but the email indicates they're interested in getting it done as soon as possible. Hard to say if this really was a bullshit offer, but don't think an indication of price through an email, especially prior to an NDA, would make sense.

Agreed, that's why I've always thought of it as an implied valuation. Investors are going into it expecting upside, and the terms allow them to have a floor (regardless of what happens with common/ prior rounds), but I don't think they would make the investment if they felt an acquisition/ IPO/ other liquidity event would value each share of the company at less than what they paid for it. I don't think its unreasonable to use this to get to an implied total valuation.

After reading through the quora article, I agree that different tranches may have different terms. However, if investors are buying 70M shares at $1 each, it implies that they believe a share of the company is worth that much. If the company has 3.5B shares, that's an implied valuation of $3.5B. In that sense, the investment does value the company at $3.5B. Whether that valuation (or a higher or lower one) is realized through a liquidity event is a different matter, and if/ when that happens, the valuation would be specific to that point in time.

Love how simple and focused it is. Would be great to learn more about the process you went through and the tools you used to build it!

Curious - why did you feel the need to start your comment like that rather than just saying 'I'm happy to see Lfyt's years of efforts in improving transportation paying off. This is so much better to hear than Uber's tale of one-upmanship.'?