Yeah, I wonder if this will become a trend. I always thought the underwriting agency in an IPO was a form institutional gate keeping / toll booth on the road to going public.
It will be a trend for heavy VC funded companies that are not really profitable (not speaking about Coinbase specifically). DPO's allow VC to recoup investments at around the 10 year mark for company's that do not make financial sense on paper.
Why does that matter here? Profitability is not a prerequisite for an IPO, and any IPO let's investors recoup their money.
It used to be that you could not IPO unless you were profitable, and furthermore the point of an IPO was to raise money needed to fund growth. But today these companies have raised enough money from VC's that they don't need any more from the public markets. By listing shares and letting these insiders sell, there is more limited supply and great demand, so they can sell tiny stakes for inflated prices. It's really great for VC's and other insiders.
> It used to be that you could not IPO unless you were profitable
Citation please. Lots of companies IPO while losing money.
If this was a thing, it's ancient history and not relevant to IPO vs DPO discussion.
I don't think it matters. I think the main difference is an IPO is typically used to raise money to grow, where as a DPO is mainly used to shift risk from VC to the main street and allow VC to recoup money from a non profitable entity. A magic trick really. IPO's do that too, but with a DPO there isn't the expense and the risk dog and pony show. Similar but different.
Also Palantir and Roblox - I think it's the way forward for most companies. Spotify was the first and the others have had slight variation to terms, but the core idea is good.