Because of this dynamic, the stock price of the company a year after they IPO is a really interesting indicator of the 'retained' value of the company. Which is to say after anyone who has a big chunk of the company could sell (and that drives down the price) versus how many people are selling. This is where the float is maximized so the stock price is more closely tied to the market value rather than a scarcity value.
Dropbox's performance has been pretty solid in this regard, especially compared to things like GroupOn or Zynga (notable problem children) or SNAP (current poster child).
I don't own any DBX that I'm aware of (I may through an aggregated ETF so for the pedantic folks I leave that disclaimer in) but it wouldn't seem to be a "bad" investment for holding.
TEAM up 4.1x since Dec 2015
TWLO up 4.7x since Jun 2016
SHOP up 7.4x since May 2015
OKTA up 4x since Apr 2017
ZS up 2x since Mar 2018
Retail investors can definitely still make money.
(granted not all of those are IPOs in the last decade)
This metric would have probably excluded Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Lyft. I think Uber will also be a gamble. But PagerDuty seems like a solid company that will do well, and a far less risky investment than a social / ridesharing service.
Can anyone point out cases where a "reasonable"  company ended up underperforming or crashing a few years after an IPO?
 E.g. HN comments are generally positive, instead of "this is ridiculous".
Generally no, especially if it's in high demand. My broker allows retail investors to place bids if they have over $250k in their account and agree, as a condition of having access to future IPOs, not to sell within 30 days. However there's still no guarantee of having your order filled.
The prices I quoted were from the first day of trading, not the IPO.
I wouldn't discount that company yet. Their market cap is actually fairly well priced right now, and I'd wager they are under-valued (assuming they execute well over next 6 months).
I am down 5% on DBX.
Also with the 50% pop looks like investors were ready to give them future growth so the company definitely left money on the table with their IPO pricing.
But none the less amazing IPO. Hopefully stock stays in the range on Friday.
The company doesn't necessarily raise that much on IPO day. The importance of raising that sum at a 20% higher/lower valuation probably isn't the biggest thing at stake.
The IPO isn't primarily fund raising, especially for this current crop of more mature unicorns. It's primarily liquidity generating.
Elixir brings style to Erlang/OTP.
Comparing to Ruby is apples to oranges because Ruby's concurrency and operational foundation is weak. The better comparison is Erlang/OTP vs JVM, where JVM gets the edge on optimized performance, and Erlang/OTP gets the edge on concurrency & tooling. The appeal for Scala folk would be if you don't care about the JVM compatibility or raw performance, and want an opinionated ecosystem built from the ground up around the actor model.
Pro-tip: If you can't write a GenServer in Elixir from scratch, along with understanding all of the differences between casts and calls, you probably don't understand the actor model (at least how it's used in Elixir) very well.
Today, we have a good mix of teams that are fully on Elixir, teams that are ramping up, and teams who are still waiting for the first project that will allow them to say, “We’ll do this one in Elixir.”
However, if we look at new services being developed, we use a lot of Elixir, it is our default choice.
This dichotomy is very usual in our industry. What we have reflects our entire history, and the history of tools available when we wrote all that code.
But what we write today reflects our priorities today, and the tooling available today.
Now ask me about front-end development. Yes, we have some CoffeeScript/Backbone still in production, but we aren’t doing any new work in it!
Their product ain't half bad either