I'm sympathetic to a prohibition on big companies buying their competitors, but a 3x difference over two years seems too low to suggest that antitrust creates more pure business value.

First this is all hindsight now. We don't know the probabilities of this outcome vs. others. Figma's shareholders didn't at the time, which is why they chose to sell. Khan didn't either.

Second, 3x over two years isn't that much. There must be many opportunities in SV for all of Figma's employees and investors that could have given them a much higher return than that with much less risk.

I don't have this data, but one could look at secondary sales in the past two years as a measure of the increased risk and opportunity cost, right?

Any delay of people getting liquid impacts the creation of other startups, both by the Figma people who can now leave and do their own thing and for the companies Figma stakeholders would have invested in . This is super hard to measure but it is the kind of thing markets are good at measuring when they ask shareholders "sell now to Adobe or wait to IPO?"

This seems really good for Figma users, most of all. Most of the value destroyed by the acquisition would have been in the distortion and likely ultimate destruction of a company culture that made an insanely good product.

But those people are capable of going and making new products, and maybe Figma at its current phase is now too boring a thing for their talents, and should be managed by a more boring organization staffed by people who are slightly less able to make another Figma.

Who knows, but I doubt Khan (or any one individual or organization) is in a better position to assess the optimal delivery of what people want than the incentivized distributed intelligence of all the stakeholders and the people and markets around them.

Again, there are other reasons to do this that markets wouldn't quantify.

The lengths people will go to to avoid the facts on this are fucking remarkable. I'll let Opus explain:

"The Bottom Line

A 73% annualized return would:

    Easily rank in the top 10-20 best-documented investment returns of all time if sustained for multiple years
    Significantly outperform virtually all professional fund managers and legendary investors
    Be 7x higher than the long-term stock market average
    Turn $10,000 into $30,000 in just 2 years (your 3x example)
Such returns are typically only achieved during:

    Early-stage growth of revolutionary companies (like early Apple, Amazon, or Netflix)
    Cryptocurrency bull runs
    Highly leveraged trades
    Exceptional market timing during recovery periods
    Small/micro-cap stocks experiencing explosive growth
While spectacular, returns of this magnitude are extremely difficult to sustain and often involve significant risk."

Then why did shareholders choose to sell?

In choosing to sell they decided the risk wasn't worth the reward.

If you were in their position, would you have sold or held?

Maybe they thought an IPO wasn’t going to happen because the market would be in bad shape or there would be too much regulation there.

Maybe they were seeing the AI boom on the horizon and wanted the capital out now to deploy there. They wanted to chase AI not hodl some “old” pre-AI thing. A lot of people think AI is going to render the entire process of which Figma has become a key part obsolete. (I don’t.)

Those are two things I can think of to explain this behavior.

Also some people like to get out when they’re ahead. “The world is full of rich people who sold too soon, not rich people who sold too late.” This makes sense if you are generally pessimistic, which many are for various reasons.

The shareholders chose to sell because it was a decent/OK deal for everyone other than the users of the software/society at large.

I have no idea why they agreed to the deal, one imagines a bunch of competing interests ranging from late D, E, F+ round holders, to founders, to influential employees. By the time a company is selling to a mega-conglomerate (in effect, a holding company) for 20 billion dollars it's pretty hard to un-grind the sausage on how a bunch of competing incentives got resolved.

As a founder? Obviously I hold unless I know something is rotten in Denmark and it's about to collapse like a Michael Siebel sale to Autodesk. Are you kidding? I've got a startup so successful that I'm already a billionaire and my choices are:

- let it ride, be a star, chart my own course - go work for fucking Adobe lol

Yeah, easy one.

If I'm an early VC or a limited partner with some structural reason to need the cash before some accounting period ends or something? Maybe I want the sale. Maybe I own a bunch of Adobe stock and I want the consolidation. Maybe a lot of things.

Don't know why the deal got agreed to pending regulator approval. If I'm an already richer-than-God founder, or an employee who can either get full value for my shares or get Windsurf'd in some preference shenanigans, or most anyone else involved? Then fuck Adobe.