Honest question.
-
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. -
@joeinwynnewood @mastodonmigration
Your right.
$15M is a lot of money.But the percentage of a company you get for your money is not based on "a lot of money"...
It's based on the percentage your "lot of money" is compared to the total perceived value of the company.
Do you know the total current perceived value of BSky...?? I don't.
If you don't, you can make no judgement as to the percentage $15M received in return.
If you do, the math is simple.
-
@lupus_blackfur @mastodonmigration
"Just not certain there's anything any more nefarious than any other current tech company."
That's the problem.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to Grassroots Joe last edited by
@joeinwynnewood @lupus_blackfur
Agree with this. $15M for an early stage round would involve a lot of equity. There would also be significant concerns about control. All of these details would be hammered out.
That is why the glib representation (misrepresentation?) that the company is "owned" by Jay Graber and the emotes is particularly concerning.
-
@lupus_blackfur @joeinwynnewood @mastodonmigration
Perceived value is bullshit and can be whatever the investors want it to be.
-
Not all tech companies are monsters. Certainly many are.
One of the things that differentiates them is transparency. The fact that Bluesky's ownership picture is not clear should be very troubling.
-
@mastodonmigration @lupus_blackfur
My comment was based on the current state and philosophies of several of the largest tech companies in the world. We are buried under bad tech actors.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to LAUREN last edited by [email protected]
@noondlyt @lupus_blackfur @joeinwynnewood
If someone put in $15M and got 10% of the company, the 'book' value becomes $150M. If they got 33%, it's $45M. That's how valuation is established.
Of course, you are right, if someone comes along and offers $50M for 20%, that reestablishes the valuation at $250M.
Since the company has zero revenue, this all begs the question of what are people buying for their millions? Which is another reason ownership matters.
-
Indeed we are. Completely agree.
-
@mastodonmigration @lupus_blackfur @joeinwynnewood
Zero revenue + bleeding money and Jay not getting paid. That last round of investment looks like payroll to me
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to LAUREN last edited by [email protected]
@noondlyt @lupus_blackfur @joeinwynnewood
Would agree, and this also makes them vulnerable.
Edit: Figure at 10 employees plus a hundred "contract moderators" and server costs, they are burning about $1M per month minimum. That $15M won't last long.
-
@mastodonmigration @lupus_blackfur @joeinwynnewood
Yes. Very. It is the reason for the dog and pony show tour she did last year visiting all of the news organizations. They must make this look like a real profit center to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
-
@mastodonmigration @lupus_blackfur @joeinwynnewood
One other thing, IMO, Crypto will be an integral part of it all. They are just waiting for the support of the new administration.
