undefined | Better HN

0 pointsv5v31d ago0 comments

>By May 2026, 332 of the 1,900 unicorns in a database maintained by Ilya Strebulaev of Stanford University had raised money at a valuation at or below their peak (see chart). Of those, 212 were valued at under $1bn. As many as 383 had disclosed no new funding in the previous three years; 41 of these had lost unicorn status

332 out of 1900 isn't that bad?

Even the further 338 if confirmed would still be less a minority of the overall 1900

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

Maakuth1d ago· 1 in thread

Down-rounds are very undesirable though. So those 332 likely have not had other options. True number of companies that wouldn't really be valued as high as their peak raise is probably higher, but some of them have been able to find enough revenue or other sources of funding in order not to raise and be valued down.

sidewndr461d ago

if you're a current equity holder they're undesirable. If you're buying in or buying more, no real reason to avoid a down round so long as the company is viable

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse