undefined | Better HN

0 pointsben_jones9y ago0 comments

In the case of Elon Musk (and for the record others like Mark Cuban) something tells me you don't make billions of dollars without a (from a modern perspective) massively disproportionate ownership share. Zuckerberg gets off from this because FB is an outlier in terms of it's value, he didn't need as large a percentage to make as much, but Musk does not.

0 comments

z3t49y ago

Musk owned like 11% of Paypal once it sold for 1.5B, while Zuckerberg owned around 20% of Facebook when it IPO:ed for like 5B. The takeaway though is that it's better to own 10% of one Billion then 90+% of nothing. And great things can only be achieved while working together.

elmar9y ago

Zuckerberg was lucky with a big jump on valuations on Series B Peter Thiel didn't invest because of the runaway valuation, later he regretted [1], and being a "Solo-Founder" :) if standard funding history with 2 co-founders Zuckerberg should have IPO with 5%~10% stake.

[1] "Biggest mistake ever was not to do the Series B round at Facebook," http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiels-bad-investment-2...

Equity in Startups - Cap tables at IPO

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2134116

ben_jonesOP9y ago

I stand corrected. It was my belief that he made much more from the acquisition because of how much I thought he put into SpaceX and later Tesla, and therefore would have had a much higher equity percent then 11%. He seems to have had a much higher business acumen then I thought [1] (not to say I didn't think it was already pretty high).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Zip2

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse