Maybe starting a business for which the only way to get funding is by screwing over your employees is exactly the problem here?
edit: Actually, the last round of my first company was 1.5x non-participating, so a little worse-- it was the best we could do. Didn't matter because it didn't get triggered.
My first couple companies won. My last company lost. Good luck ever getting capital without that liquidity preference-- it doesn't get done.
My employees got nothing for equity; I lost money overall even when you count my salary. Investors got paid back a portion of what they invested, but lost money too. Everyone lost. Investors and founders were negative, employees were 0 on equity but received their salary/bonus comp.
I would have been a hell of a lot better off personally without the liquidity preference, but is that fair? If the company ends up producing less money than was invested in it, it seems to make sense that the investors should get the money.
Haha that sounds rather brutal when you say it that way :(
Literally GP post says that investors got pennies on the dollar back and you’re grousing that employees got nothing for their (worthless) equity? Without disrespect to the effort of founder(s) and employees, the company created negative economic value. That’s the root issue, not that the investors had fair contractual terms that caused them to lose “only the vast majority of their investment” rather than “all of it”.