Hacker News Reader

Comment by dinobones | Hacker News Reader

I love Stripe, blah blah blah, Stripe has "good" le docs and good dev experience and w/e.

But now that they have market share they are seemingly becoming more greedy.

I think they are overplaying their hand. There's no reason that these charges should be %-based. And I'm almost certain for large enterprise customers they're not; there's probably custom negotiated contracts for those cases.

I hope we get more players in this space that can force them to be more competitive on pricing.

View on HN

They are in a valuation trap based on forward looking fundamentals.

I don't get why every tech company wants to IPO especially profitable ones. I'd much rather stay private with my money factory, and if I need some loans to expand, then so be it. Microsoft did it for Azure, look how well that worked out. I feel like a lot of companies do worse after going on the Stock Market. The stock market is where long term companies go to be screwed on a whim.

When you IPO, you’re getting wealthy off of Other People’s Money flowing in creating liquidity. When you have to buy out existing cap table folks (either through enterprise cashflow or financing), it becomes harder. An artifact of ZIRP evaporating after entire businesses were built on the VC IPO flip model (and profitability becoming king over growth at any cost).

Very similar to the PE crunch currently in progress for the same reason: interest rates that rose fast and will remain higher for longer.

It will take time for everyone’s expectations and actions to reach the new macro reality, with current participants attempting to "find a way out" that is most favorable for the circumstances.

Because the employees at these companies don’t share in the “money factory” mentality. Personally I’d rather work somewhere and get paid well and have stability, but unfortunately most businesses just pay “market” which is on par with those who offer options.

Most employees expect an IPO exit if a business is successful. I suspect that "if we hit it, we will share profit with you" would be a lot less attractive for an employee.

Most of the world runs on engineering done by folks not expecting an IPO payday (and instead, base, bonus, work life balance, etc). >90% of startups fail and never have a payday [1]. Employees will find opportunities elsewhere and expectations will need to more closely align with reality for those holding out for the "before times" that are unlikely to exist again [2].

[1] https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/ | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40363262

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11112367

Of course, but a small portion of the employees, disproportionately concentrated at startups, are willing to take a bet on an eventual exit. They accept a 90+% chance of a company going belly up and a 7-digit payday if it becomes a roaring success.

But without an IPO it becomes a chance for a small royalty payment, and this is a lot less attractive success.

I agree, these folks will have to make do without these previous opportunities existing or exit the industry if that is not palatable. Lottery tickets drying up.

But what is the reason for no longer selling those lottery tickets? Some employees really want them and they are a very good deal for the employers -- cash strapped early startups. What drives the drying up?

Interest rates rising providing a risk free rate substantially higher than the last decade, making it less necessary for investors reaching for yield to get VC asset class exposure. No VC funding, no startups issuing lottery equity tickets.

The situation will improve as the Fed cuts rates, but zero interest rate policy that fueled the previous economic exuberance is unlikely to return due to structural economic changes.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS

https://www.goingvc.com/post/how-rising-interest-rates-impac...

https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/high-interest-rates-cr... | https://archive.today/DPlzm

>The stock market is where long term companies go to be screwed on a whim.

What data do you base this on? "Long term" companies that do not choose to become publicly listed go out of business all the time. Some of them even get obviated by competitors who do choose to go public, and as a result, have a ton more money to outcompete the non public ones.

When you're a VC, you expect 9 out of 10 to utterly fail. So you need that 1 out of 10 to turn into a high-growth Unicorn.

I guess if those tech companies are VC-funded... isn't the whole point to IPO?

I'm saying that's neither right nor wrong but there are examples of the good on both sides; Jetbrains and Crowdstrike seems to be doing fairly well despite staying private and going IPO, respectively.

> But now that they have market share they are seemingly becoming more greedy.

Of course. Go read Theil's "Zero to One" again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com