>Sustainable income? If you're getting a check for $10 million, do you care?

Depends on the kind of values you have.

You can't build a policy on "Maybe people will just be nice?".

Aggregate economic decisions are not based on values, they are based on systematic incentives.

If society operated on altruistic values, it would have never invented government.

>If society operated on altruistic values, it would have never invented government.

This assumes there are no coordination, planning and other services that the government offers.

At best, society would never had invented the police.

I would create an unsustainable business in return for $10 million. Does that make me a bad person?

If you designed the business knowing that it would collapse at some point in the future, and knowingly sold it to someone that would be left holding the bag, I think that would make you a very unethical person. If you did this, real people would be hurt by your decisions, and you would have continued to execute your plan knowing this. Maybe you just haven't thought through the consequences, but I wouldn't want to be friends with someone that acted that way.

Edit: Since it appears that I wasn't clear enough, I'm saying that misrepresenting the value of a business to employees, customers, and investors is unethical. If everyone involved knows the venture is doomed to fail and you can still retire off the profits, I don't see a problem with that.

What? All companies will collapse, building a business means fighting against that to create value. Why do you assume the buyer is clueless? They have just as much responsibility and would only purchase if they see value in the deal.

It's one thing to misrepresent, but that's fraud so that scenario is taken care of. Not sure why there's so much moral judgement going on here or who gets hurt when a company is sold, giving its workers money and opportunity rather than going bankrupt.

You're taking my comment out of context. GP said they would create an unsustainable business for $10 million, which kind of implies that they knew from the beginning that whoever bought the business would lose their investment. Buyer beware doesn't absolve the seller in a strictly moral evaluation. I was merely responding to the GP's hypothetical, not making a comment about the VC market in general. Also, GP never said fraud was off the table. :)

It doesn't imply anything. If the seller is not fraudulent then it is absolutely up to the buyer to judge the value and thus the price they pay. If they're paying $10M for a business with all the data upfront, then they are assuming they can recoup that cost.

I can sell a company that has a business model that will expire in a few years because of new tech or laws or some other reason - if a buyer still buys the company from me then what's the problem? Who gets hurt since that's what you said would happen?

There's nothing invalid or unethical about this strategy nor do I care if the acquiring company just executes badly and ends up wasting the money.

We're way off topic, but we're not disagreeing here. If there was no misrepresentation involved then there's nothing unethical. I've edited my reply to specify. As to who gets hurt (assuming information asymmetry): the users who depend on the service, the buyer that loses their investment, and the employees that put a significant portion of their lives into trying to breathe life into an operation where the founder was only interested in creating the short-term appearance of value in order to flip it.

I'm more concerned about the damage to the users who get the short end of the stick after being lured by a service and its promises, than about the buyer.

It sucks even more when they provide an API, and with little forward notice, discontinue the service entirely. Google is notorious for that as well.

That's a meaningless hypothetical situation. There's no way to know when or if a business you sell will collapse in the future. Unless you actively conceal material information from the buyer (like hidden debts), which crosses the line from unethical behavior to criminal fraud.

Are you friends with a lot of people who have sold startups for $10 million?

If while you were building it, you advertised to your users as some kind of user-centered "passion" project (complete with PR BS targeting them to lure them), only to screw them after they have depended on your service by selling it to some large company that will fuck it/close it, then,

yes.

No. It is called an exit-strategy.

Mark Cuban became a billionaire by selling a domain name to Yahoo.

Now he is a reality TV star.

To be fair, he used some of that stardom to get Shark Tank to drop the automatic 5% equity grant just for appearing on the show, including retroactively to previous entrepreneurs.

https://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/mark-cuban-forces-shark-ta...

That's orthogonal.

You can have an exit-strategy, or become a billionaire, or a reality tv star, and achieve it by acting bad.

Selfish for sure. Soneone is going to pay that 10 million. And I bet your service does not provide equivalent worth to the community. Heck, probably net negative even without the money.

If you have to ask, the answer is probably yes.

The point is that, as a society, we should care. And that means putting in the right checks and balances that at the individual level we still care.

A bit off topic but true. You don't deserve down votes in my book.

An obvious third exit option is proven and popular: be bought and ousted by uncommonly optimistic investors or competitors, so that scaling, profitability etc. become their problem (even if founders linger at their former company as employees with negligible stock).

How is that different from option 2?

The company still stays as a separate entity.

Call it option 3. The exit for the board is either sale or bankruptcy.