Generally it's not you making the decision but some investor who needs to close out a 10y fund and can force the sale through some nasty term in the SHA.

In a unicorn situation, the founder will generally take money off the table early and will be okay regardless. Just look at WeWork.

It certainly is, but in the US there have apparently been enough incentives for some founders not to accept an offer at that level. Some of those founders have gone on to build their businesses up to billion-dollar valuations, with dominance in their field, and now they've become the ones doing the investing and acquiring for the next generation of tech businesses. We have almost none of that in Europe, and I think it's important to ask why. I don't believe we lack people with ideas, skills and entrepreneurial instincts, and that means something else is getting in the way.

I think both are important. There is a question of what we do to prevent any successful medium-sized European business becoming a small part of some huge US business. But there is also a question of how our entire entrepreneurial sector got so broken on this side of the Atlantic that such a huge imbalance arose in the first place. If we don't address the issues that caused that to happen once, surely it will tend to happen again sooner or later.

If we stopped them buying competitors they'd just build their own competitor, and then the founders with the original idea would probably lose and nothing else would change. At least while FAANGs buy up their competitors the founders get an exit.

It is, as always, an inequality issue. Sadly, the alternative is not acceptable in a neoliberal world: no european company is willing or able to pay up for a promising technology as much as Google, Apple or Amazon will, but nation-states definitely can.