cash

It is for cash only, with no value-add.

Maybe I'm insane, but when someone says "is the cash worth it to these founders?

Lots of people want to play them too, but they don't really want to shell out much cash to do so.

I would've loved to cash in on those most precious of internet points.

[1]Isn't it amazing, the lack of sacrifice necessary to make fat stacks of cash writing software?

Microsoft bought Skype because they have large amounts of cash in Europe that they cannot repatriate without taking a huge tax hit.

Instead [...] we must work in sales and marketing to convince someone with money to trade cash for our trinket, so that we can have purchasing power to access the natural bounty of the land.

Everything Microsoft does is done from the perspective of furthering the Windows/Office cash cow.

Maybe they just need cash fast and the people they are dealing with it are ready to do it on oppressive terms that are easier swallowed than would be shuttering the venture.

Or, on the positive side, maybe it means taking funds on less than ideal terms but from an investor who will add large value to the venture apart from the cash element.

If the answer to this is that it is worth it for many startups to make such tradeoffs in exchange for fast cash, I would add that these funds are not being offered to just any startup.

The biggest question I would have for those startups is this: fast and easy cash, yes, but are the complications worth it for $150K if other reasonable options are open to you?

In US there is this revolving door between corporations and the govt that legitimizes corruption, whereas in India it is closer to cash under the table.

They just want to cash out so that they can have their financial freedom and then go out of the limelight and back to doing the same things they enjoy but without having to constantly worry about job security and putting food on the table.