I've seen it more like they're aiming for 10X the last round. (Though in most cases the last round is by far the largest) I think the reasoning is that 2X vs 0.2X barely registers a difference for the VC. The home runs are what moves the needle on their returns. Founders need to be aware of this when they ask for the check. I think we'll see a lot of situations like the one you've observed.
In this case I think "The CEO told Re/code that the cuts are not an attempt to dress the company up for a sale, but said he “might be open” to those conversations if they arose during the process of trying to secure new investments" means "We'll sell out at the first opportunity, rather than go through a painful down round"
Doing the math, it sounds like they're down to 200 and change employees from a high of over 1000.
> I think the reasoning is that 2X vs 0.2X barely registers a difference for the VC.
I thought this was worth calling out. This is more believable than the reputation/pride argument for holding out. The business model is built around homeruns and busts. Middling exits are essentially busts.
That's insane, and highlights the unreal expectations around the VC investment model. A draw is not a huge win but it's still a draw, and that means you get to play again.
AFAIK, a typical fund is structured to close within 10 years. If the exit is, say, 6-7 years into the fund's life, there won't be material time to "play again" and still honor the agreement with the fund's limited partners (read: institutional investors) of getting their money back in time.
In this case I think "The CEO told Re/code that the cuts are not an attempt to dress the company up for a sale, but said he “might be open” to those conversations if they arose during the process of trying to secure new investments" means "We'll sell out at the first opportunity, rather than go through a painful down round"
Doing the math, it sounds like they're down to 200 and change employees from a high of over 1000.