Corporate VPN startup Tailscale secures $230 million CAD Series C on back of “surprising” growth
Pennarun confirmed the company had been approached by potential acquirers, but told BetaKit that the company intends to grow as a private company and work towards an initial public offering (IPO).
“Tailscale intends to remain independent and we are on a likely IPO track, although any IPO is several years out,” Pennarun said. “Meanwhile, we have an extremely efficient business model, rapid revenue acceleration, and a long runway that allows us to become profitable when needed, which means we can weather all kinds of economic storms.”
Keep that in mind as you ponder whether and when to switch to self-hosting Headscale.
Firstly, I’m not trying to start a flame war with commenters, I genuinely just disagree on something and some people are getting a little hot under the collar by it. The Linux Foundation comment I made because ultimately VC touches more than people think. Even its something that isn’t directly tied to VC, that money filters through groups like LF which is a non-profit and most would argue a quite legitimate organization. The point is there really is no separation or clear line of demarcation on what is “good” funding and what is “bad” funding.
I understand and I disagree. A demarcation emerges from the goal of the funding and its effects. For me, one example of bad funding is funding that drives user acquisition at unsustainable prices by a firm that is also significantly controlled by the funding source. This is predominantly what VC-funding goes to. VC-funding that goes to a non-profit that the VC has no control over, where the VC can’t and does not demand financial return from, is not bad funding in my books. Corporate funding doing the same thing is also not bad funding. Government funding often has the least strings attached as it does not demand direct return, and this also is not bad funding. To top that off citizens can exercise control over government funding via the democratic process, unlike corporate or VC funding, where the vast majority have zero control, and are owed no accountability by the businesses.
Historically, Accel has never pushed acquisition. On the contrary, they do the opposite. Its why they VC fund over 300 companies, but you’ve never heard of them. That’s not to say they couldn’t, but they haven’t ever acted in that manner previously so logically it would be safe to assume that trend continues with Tailscale. I think that’s important here: its not about ability its about intent. If as a organization you give funding to another organization (even non-profits) you exercise at least some control over them as they are dependent on that money to function. This is actually a point other commenters have made in regards to Headscale. Headscale is maintained by a Tailscale employee. As they fund him personally, they can exercise some control over him as he depends on that money/employment. Again, even their comments circle back to ability vs intent. Tailscale could influence their employee, but would they? That’s where a lot of the VC argument goes. Its just speculation as what a group could do, not what they would do.
“The trend” is making money no matter what. That means they’re gonna screw you over eventually, the countdown has already begun, and it’s just a matter of time
Is there an actual example you can provide of Accel doing that or is this more an emotionally driven statement you have?
The specific company does not, in fact, matter because VCs have the same set of incentives in the end
So, even if Accel doesn’t do that, which they haven’t done that, they are still guilty of doing that. Ok, yeah. That’s some solid irrefutable logic you got going there. I think I’ll go back to arguing this with commenters who are a little less emotional and more grounded in real world points about the topic.
Not what I said. I in fact said the specific company doesn’t matter because all VC money seeks to make more money and the easiest way to do that is parasitically jacking up costs to customers every quarter no matter what until the company collapses. Then rinse and repeat, making money each time. Does this screw people over? Absolutely. Are there legal consequences? Nope, so they can do it as many times as they want, forever
So… if all VC money does, then you can provide an example of Accel doing this… right? So, go ahead and do that now.
deleted by creator