Honest question.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to lupus_blackfur last edited by [email protected]
Again, see above, the statement that the company is owned by Jay Graber and the employees, and the fact that they have outside investors (eg Blockchain Capital), does not make sense and needs to be explained.
Further, that they are apparently being very circumspect about their ownership should heighten the concern about who actually owns the business.
Where is the full disclosure of their equity distribution including any fancy things like convertible debt and/or warrants?
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to Dwight Silverman last edited by [email protected]
Seen that. And it is clear as mud, which is the motivation for the question.
-
@mastodonmigration Does not add up at all. As you say, VC is never a charitable donation. I believe it will be clear soon enough what "value" they have been promised. That value will be the user base of course.
-
M [email protected] shared this topic
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to W6KME last edited by [email protected]
Maybe. But the fact remains that we don't know. The company is apparently misrepresenting the entire ownership picture. At least it is not explaining what Blockchain Capital and others got for their $15M. This should be a red flag.
Another question is if they have any other obligations which could be converted to equity. For example any convertible debt or warrants.
-
@mastodonmigration For me, the ownership isn't the problem...it's the *centralized* nature of ownership; the fact that there is a central authority at all, good or bad. There is only one possible outcome-they need money to come in, and it will come from selling their users' information. This is the BEST possible outcome, that it will be just another twitter.
Bluesky is not a good choice for users.
-
lupus_blackfurreplied to Mastodon Migration last edited by
I don't guess I unstd why this "does not make sense"... Seems straightforward.
"being circumspect"...
Yeah, maybe... Undesirable but different than any other tech company...??"heighten concern"...
Sure. That's the original prob... their ownership situation. Similar to Xitter."equity distribution" etc...
Much deeper questions than you originally asked but certainly worthy of question...
Outside my expertise.Unstd your concerns w/ BSky, and share them, but
-
Absolutely this is all true. It matters a lot that the platform is apparently largely owned by a few individuals who could sell it at the drop of a hat to some malevolent billionaire. Completely agree.
Beyond that what we don't know is if they already have. And if so, to what degree?
Clearly, Blockchain Capital received something for their $15M. What?
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to lupus_blackfur last edited by
It does not make sense because the company states it is owned by Jay and the employees. This would mean that Blockchain Capital got nothing for their $15 investment. That does not make sense.
When a company tries to obscure something, it seems like a good idea to figure out why.
-
lupus_blackfurreplied to Mastodon Migration last edited by
Mmm...
It makes sense cause "ownership" just means "majority shareholder" essentially (as I unstd these things)...
Blockchain Capital got some piece, but how much...."When a company tries to obscure something, it seems like a good idea to figure out why."
Well, sure.
Would never quibble with that...Just not certain there's anything any more nefarious than any other current tech company.
Not defending BSky, just saying not necessarily especially nefarious.
Yet.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to Mastodon Migration last edited by [email protected]
Well, this is interesting.
Bluesky represents it is owned entirely by Jay Graber and the employees.
Last year they got $15M from VC firm Blockchain Capital.
Clearly VC firms don't give away money for nothing.
What percent of #Bluesky did Blockchain Capital get for their $15M?
Simple question.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to Mastodon Migration last edited by [email protected]
Look, one thing we absolutely should have learned over the last year is that it matters who owns these platforms.
So, who owns #Bluesky?
Specifically who, and in what percentages?
Not, some general ambiguous statement, but full disclosure including any obligations like convertable debt or warrants.
It's bad enough that it is privately held and could get snapped up at any moment, but who owns it now?
Folks, we need to become much more cognizant of who owns our social media platforms.
-
Have you ever been involved in any kind of private investor transaction?
There are contracts that stipulate the number and kind of shares being bought with that investment with terms for repurchase, etc.
$15M is a LOT of money for a small private firm, and they really needed the cash with the sudden influx of new accounts.
I would find it very hard to believe the VCs got anything less than 30 or 40% of the company, probably a good bit more.
-
Darren du Nordreplied to Mastodon Migration last edited by
@mastodonmigration
WIKIPEDIA:
Bluesky Social is a benefit corporation. It is owned by CEO Jay Graber and other Bluesky Social employees. Graber has the largest ownership share of the company. In late 2024, members of the board of directors included Graber, Jeremie Miller, Mike Masnick, and Kinjal Shah.Funding for operations, as of late 2024, comes primarily from investors and venture capital firms. No advertising is available on the service as of December 2024, and Jay Graber has stated that Bluesky will not "enshittify the network with ads".
Thats what we know.
-
Just Bob 🇺🇲♒🐧🪖replied to Mastodon Migration last edited by
Who owns the Fediverse? Me and about 30,000 admins
(had to double check that lol) -
@reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman:replied to Mastodon Migration last edited by
If you know the valuation for that round, then you can calculate what percentage the VC probably got.
But, even if that information isn't available, it is common for a regular round to give up about 10%.
I don't know if that applies to them, but — that would be my suspicion (if valuation information for that round isn't available).
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to @reiver ⊼ (Charles) :batman: last edited by
Haven't seen it anywhere.
And speculating should not be necessary.
They are presenting themselves as a public benefit corporation. They should be forthcoming about their ownership and overhanging equity obligations.
-
@darren @mastodonmigration what did those venture capital firms get for their money?
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to Darren du Nord last edited by [email protected]
Right. And it is not enough, and it is misleading because it implies that Blockchain Capital got no ownership interest for their $15M investment, which makes no sense.
It also, raises the question of why they are obscuring their full equity picture.
This should be simple. They should reveal who owns equity in the company and how much. Also, any convertable debt and/or other overhanging equity obligations.
-
Right. The article makes no sense.
-
@darren "Funding for operations, as of late 2024, comes primarily from investors and venture capital firms. "
Not very transparent for me.
Because I have a feel that anytime these investors, especially "venture capital firms", can switch from "lure users in" to "farm profit from users" or what next stage will be.
Or they can demand some change into AT Protocol or into implementations. Or into default web app. Just because. Or just because these VC got some lucrative offer from Moscow.
