This seems like the possible outcomes for high profile startups and not necessarily most startups. I am relatively young (not even 30) and have already been a part of a startup that died a much quieter death, absent any fire sales or acqui-hires.
If anything it reinforces how powerful it is to be a high profile company. Then your company doesn't just die, it either salvages its resources as an acqui-hire/firesale (which clearly isn't good but it's something) or survives unglamorously. There are companies out there that cannot say they were "fortunate" enough for either of those things to occur.
That's exactly my point. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that this is the floor only if you're USV or somewhere similar. And I understand Fred's perspective, no one wants to put hard work into something and see it fail to flourish. Just to say, wow, if you're as successful as USV people see tremendous value in your investments even when they don't work out. And I suspect from the tone the post wasn't written with it in mind that for many people this kind of downside would be a rather fortunate level of downside risk.
Alternatively maybe the language he's using and what goes unstated is actually masking serious financial losses. But I think most startup failures actually result in founders' and investors' time & money up in smoke.
If anything it reinforces how powerful it is to be a high profile company. Then your company doesn't just die, it either salvages its resources as an acqui-hire/firesale (which clearly isn't good but it's something) or survives unglamorously. There are companies out there that cannot say they were "fortunate" enough for either of those things to occur.