If that is the case, wouldn't it be easier and better just to pay that money (or even half of it) to the engineers themselves to change employers? It seems more sensical to me that the talent acquisitions make sense primarily when the acquirer wants the founders themselves.
Comments
Talent ... As a rule of thumb, these acquisitions are priced at approximately $1M/engineer
Of which more than 90% will go to the founders and investors. The engineers being bought for $1M will be lucky to get $100K out of it.
Anybody out there want to justify or at least explain this practice?
If that is the case, wouldn't it be easier and better just to pay that money (or even half of it) to the engineers themselves to change employers? It seems more sensical to me that the talent acquisitions make sense primarily when the acquirer wants the founders themselves.