

Phil Libin explains why Evernote took money - vibrunazo
http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2805

======
malandrew
I think that it's not just a matter of separating exits from liquidity, but
that it is reasonable for anyone with any serious net worth to diversify their
assets. If you are worth $20 million because of the equity in your company and
100% of that $20 is tied to that company, it is completely reasonable to
diversity some of that $20 million. However, I would say that you need to be
prudent about signaling. Diversifying all the risk away from your own business
isn't a good sign, but diversifying up to 50% is reasonable. I will add that
it's quite ridiculous for investors to be highly diversified and than judge
entrepreneurs for wanting to diversify some of their assets when all their net
worth is tied up in their startup.

------
vibrunazo
I haven't heard of that story about decoupling exits from liquidity before. At
where I live, the mantra is that if you take money, you _must_ have been
looking to an exit. If someone put money on you, they _must_ be eyeing for a
quick exit - there's no way around it. In fact, I've heard many "mentors" and
investors explicitly tell me exactly that.

Is this separation that Phil talks about a common knowledge in the Valley? Or
anywhere else?

~~~
DanielRibeiro
This was actually forshadowed by pg in 2005[1]:

 _The most dramatic change, I predict, is that VCs will allow founders to cash
out partially by selling some of their stock direct to the VC firm. VCs have
traditionally resisted letting founders get anything before the ultimate
"liquidity event."_

[1] <http://paulgraham.com/startupfunding.html>

