Wouldn’t the current strategy result in some serious stock dilution for the early investors?
My guess is that they might be about to embark on a shopping spree and acquire some more VC backed companies. They've actually bought quite a few companies already in the past few years. And they would need cash to buy more. The company itself seems healthy and generating revenue. So, it shouldn't strictly need a lot of extra capital. Acquisitions would be the exception. You can either do that via share swaps or cash. And of course cash would mostly go to the VCs backing the acquired companies. Which is an interesting way to liquidate investments. I would not be surprised to learn that there's a large overlap with the groups of VCs of those companies and those backing databricks. 100M$ on top of 10B sounds like somebody wants in on that action.
As a financial construction it's a bit shady of course. VCs are using money from big institutional investors to artificially inflate one of their companies so that it can create exits for some of their other investments via acquisitions financed with more investment. It creates a steady stream of "successes". But it sounds a bit like a pyramid game. At some point the big company will have to deliver some value. I assume the hope is some gigantic IPO here to offload the whole construction to the stock market.
The company itself seems healthy and generating revenue
Even in some situations where some artworks could have way less value at the public auction houses (Christie’s, Phillips, Sotheby's) their preference was to market between in this circuit of private auctions.
It's a smaller piece of a bigger pie.
To answer your question, the right question to ask is why go public when you can remain private? Public means more paperwork, more legalese, more scrutiny, and less control for the founder, and all of that only to get a bit more liquidity for your stock. If you can remain private, there really isn't much of a reason to not do that.
With the exception of founders it's better for literally everybody else, more scrutiny, more pressure on c-corp, more liquidity, etc.
It's a lot easier to stay long-term focused without investors breathing down your neck. As a private company you're not dealing with shortsellers, retail memers, institutional capital that wants good earnings now, etc..
Of course, the bad side is that if the company gets mismanaged, there's far less accountability and thus it could continue until it's too late. In the public markets it's far easier to oust the C-suite if things go south.
It's a shame that the trend of staying private longer means retail gets shut out from companies like this.
Plus the markets are in a weird state right now.