Founder Control
<img src="http://www.virtumundo.com/images/spacer.gif" height=15 width=1> Want to start a startup?
<img src="http://www.virtumundo.com/images/spacer.gif" height=15 width=1> 想要创业吗？
Get funded by Y Combinator .
获得 Y Combinator 的资助。
</td > December 2010 Someone we funded is talking to VCs now, and asked me how common it was for a startup's founders to retain control of the board after a series A round.
</td> 2010 年 12 月 我们资助的某人现在正在与风险投资公司交谈，并问我初创公司的创始人在 A 轮融资后保留董事会控制权的情况有多常见。
He said VCs told him this almost never happened.
他说风险投资家告诉他这几乎从未发生过。
Ten years ago that was true.
十年前确实如此。
In the past, founders rarely kept
过去，创始人很少保留
control of the board through a series A.
通过 A 系列控制董事会。
The traditional series A board consisted of two founders, two VCs, and one independent member.
传统的 A 轮董事会由两名创始人、两名风险投资家和一名独立成员组成。
More recently the recipe is often one founder, one VC, and one independent.
最近，通常由一名创始人、一名风险投资家和一名独立人士组成。
In either case the founders lose their majority.
无论哪种情况，创始人都会失去多数席位。
But not always.
但并非总是如此。
Mark Zuckerberg kept control of Facebook's board through the series A and still has it today.
马克·扎克伯格通过 A 轮融资保持了 Facebook 董事会的控制权，至今仍然如此。
Mark Pincus has kept control of Zynga's too.
马克·平卡斯 (Mark Pincus) 也一直控制着 Zynga。
But are these just outliers?
但这些只是异常值吗？
How common
多么常见
is it for founders to keep control after an A round?
A轮融资后创始人是否能保持控制权？
I'd heard of several cases among the companies we've funded, but I wasn't sure how many there were, so I emailed the ycfounders list.
我听说过我们资助的公司中的几个案例，但我不确定具体有多少，所以我给 ycFounders 名单发了电子邮件。
The replies surprised me.
得到的答复让我感到惊讶。
In a dozen companies we've funded, the founders still had a majority of the board seats after the series A round.
在我们资助的十几家公司中，创始人在 A 轮融资后仍然拥有多数董事会席位。
I feel like we're at a tipping point here.
我觉得我们正处于一个转折点。
A lot of VCs still act as if founders retaining board control after a series A is unheard-of.
许多风险投资公司仍然表现得好像创始人在 A 轮融资后保留董事会控制权是闻所未闻的。
A lot of them try to make you feel bad if you even ask — as if you're a noob or a control freak for wanting such a thing.
如果你提出要求，他们中的很多人都会试图让你感觉很糟糕——就好像你是一个菜鸟或一个想要这样的东西的控制狂。
But the founders I heard from aren't noobs or control freaks.
但我听说的创始人并不是菜鸟或控制狂。
Or if they are, they are, like Mark Zuckerberg, the kind of noobs and control freaks VCs should be trying to fund more of.
或者即使他们是，他们也像马克·扎克伯格一样，是那种菜鸟和控制狂，风险投资公司应该努力为他们提供更多资金。
Founders retaining control after a series A is clearly heard-of.
显然听说过创始人在 A 轮融资后保留控制权。
And barring financial catastrophe, I think in the coming year it
除非发生金融灾难，我认为来年
will become the norm.
将成为常态。
Control of a company is a more complicated matter than simply outvoting other parties in board meetings.
控制公司是一件比简单地在董事会会议上投票压倒其他方更复杂的事情。
Investors usually get vetos over certain big decisions, like selling the company, regardless of how many board seats they have.
投资者通常会对某些重大决策拥有否决权，例如出售公司，无论他们拥有多少董事会席位。
And board votes are rarely split.
而且董事会的投票很少出现分裂。
Matters are decided in the discussion preceding the vote, not in the vote itself, which is usually unanimous.
事项是在投票前的讨论中决定的，而不是在投票本身中决定的，而投票本身通常是一致的。
But if opinion
但如果意见
is divided in such discussions, the side that knows it would lose in a vote will tend to be less insistent.
在这种讨论中存在分歧，知道自己会在投票中失败的一方往往会不那么坚持。
That's what board control means in practice.
这就是董事会控制在实践中的含义。
You don't simply get to do whatever you want; the board still has to act in the interest of the shareholders; but if you have a majority of board seats, then your opinion about what's in the interest of the shareholders will tend to prevail.
你不能简单地做任何你想做的事；董事会仍须以股东利益为重；但如果你拥有董事会多数席位，那么你对股东利益的看法往往会占上风。
So while board control is not total control, it's not imaginary
因此，虽然董事会控制不是完全控制，但它也不是想象出来的
either.
要么。
There's inevitably a difference in how things feel within the company.
公司内部的感受不可避免地存在差异。
Which means if it becomes the norm for founders to retain board control after a series A, that will change the way things feel in the whole startup world.
这意味着，如果创始人在 A 轮融资后保留董事会控制权成为常态，那将改变整个初创企业世界的感觉。
The switch to the new norm may be surprisingly fast, because the startups that can retain control tend to be the best ones.
向新规范的转变可能会快得惊人，因为能够保留控制权的初创公司往往是最好的。
They're the ones that set the trends, both for other startups and for VCs.
他们是为其他初创公司和风险投资公司设定趋势的人。
A lot of the reason VCs are harsh when negotiating with startups is that they're embarrassed to go back to their partners looking like they got beaten.
风险投资家在与初创公司谈判时态度严厉的很多原因是，他们不好意思回到合作伙伴身边，看起来就像被打败了一样。
When they sign a termsheet, they want to be able to brag about the good terms they got.
当他们签署投资意向书时，他们希望能够吹嘘自己获得的良好条款。
A lot of them don't care that much personally about whether founders keep board control.
他们中的很多人个人并不太关心创始人是否保留董事会控制权。
They just don't want to seem like they had to make concessions.
他们只是不想让别人觉得他们必须做出让步。
Which means if letting the founders keep control stops being perceived
这意味着如果让创始人保持控制权不再被认为
as a concession, it will rapidly become much more common.
作为一种让步，它将迅速变得更加普遍。
Like a lot of changes that have been forced on VCs, this change won't turn out to be as big a problem as they might think.
就像风投们被迫做出的许多改变一样，这种改变不会像他们想象的那样成为一个大问题。
VCs will still be able to convince; they just won't be able to compel.
风险投资家仍然能够说服；他们只是无法强迫。
And the startups where they have to resort to compulsion are not the ones that matter anyway.
而那些不得不诉诸强制的初创公司无论如何都不是最重要的。
VCs make most of their money from a few big hits, and those aren't them.
风险投资公司的大部分钱都是从一些大热门中赚到的，而这些并不是他们。
Knowing that founders will keep control of the board may even help VCs pick better.
知道创始人将保持对董事会的控制甚至可能有助于风险投资家更好地选择。
If they know they can't fire the founders, they'll have to choose founders they can trust.
如果他们知道不能解雇创始人，他们就必须选择他们可以信任的创始人。
And that's who they should have been choosing all along.
这就是他们一直应该选择的人。
Thanks to Sam Altman, John Bautista, Trevor Blackwell, Paul Buchheit, Brian Chesky, Bill Clerico, Patrick Collison, Adam Goldstein, James Lindenbaum, Jessica Livingston, and Fred Wilson
感谢 Sam Altman、John Bautista、Trevor Blackwell、Paul Buchheit、Brian Chesky、Bill Clerico、Patrick Collison、Adam Goldstein、James Lindenbaum、Jessica Livingston 和 Fred Wilson