The sad thing about the rush to create all these unicorns is that there is a good chance that its the employee&#x27;s who get screwed the most if there is a reset in funding levels.<p>Link to the original article that this one references:
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;abovethecrowd.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;04&#x2F;21&#x2F;on-the-road-to-recap&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;abovethecrowd.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;04&#x2F;21&#x2F;on-the-road-to-recap&#x2F;</a><p>As Bill points out, its been speculated that in an effort to be coined a unicorn, many of these companies agreed to some onerous funding terms, including ratchets, PIK dividends and preferential treatment as to when they can redeem their shares if there is an IPO.<p>This might make sense from a founders perspective as reportedly many of the founders have taken some money off the table during previous funding rounds.<p>This leaves the employees as the only class of shareholders who often can&#x27;t take money off the table during fund raising and who are usually the last to be able to sell their shares&#x2F;exercise options when the company goes public.