Hype and plunder: Domo a new low for self-indulgent IPOs
I take this as one of the two central themes of this article:<p>"...points to a persistent flaw in Silicon Valley financing: the willingness to give start-up founders unassailable control of their companies, to the point that investors have no recourse if things go blooey."<p>That's not a flaw, it's a fundamental part of how it is meant to work.<p>The investors generally don't <i>want</i> to invest in companies run by a committee of investors... or else they would certainly do just that. Not to mention the larger investors could self-fund their own companies, if that's what they wanted to do, and retain all control. They are investing in the ideas, talent, and execution of the founders and other principal executives. It would be pointless to turn around and take control away from them.<p>(I think the other main theme of this article is that Domo is a mess... which is probably true. I only know what I read in the article, but it seems they have real revenue? It would have to more than double to match their rate of spending, but that can happen if they really provide value. It's hard to have confidence, though, in a CEO who is funneling money out of the company to his family and himself. Just the willingness to put that kind of cloud over the company, is a red flag.)