No, it's not a huge percentage of their stake. They still retain massive stakes in a risky private company with a $1.2B+ valuation.
They're just diversifying a little. You wouldn't ask an investor to prove their commitment by putting 100% of their net worth in a single venture. Investors are diversified. Smart founders should be, too, as soon as they are able.
The difference here is that the founders are somehow diversifying without actually parting with any of their investment. This is simply a massive bonus to the founders treated as a dividend (probably for tax-avoidance purposes.) The fact that it's not available to most employees, even those with stock options, if problematic, if you ask me.
It is a huge percentage of their funding, around 1/6th. If a company where to raise 6m and the founders got 1m not by equity, but by dividends! That just doesn't happen.
If the founder's want to sell some of their equity, I'm fine with that, but that is NOT what happened here. This is purely a pay-day.
If I knew my company was going to be the next eBay for realestate, why would you hamper your company by taking 21m off the table. This signals greed and/or being unsure of your future success.
If the founders retain a majority, this is less than 4% of their stake — that percentage is more relevant in analyzing the confidence signalling and motivations than a superficially large "$21 million" figure.
Clearly you still don't understand. They didn't sell 4% of their stake. If they did that, it would be somewhat reasonable. What they got was a dividend. In other words a bonus.
And yes the figure is still "large" because it is 1/6th of their funding that goes to their pockets, rather than the company.
They're just diversifying a little. You wouldn't ask an investor to prove their commitment by putting 100% of their net worth in a single venture. Investors are diversified. Smart founders should be, too, as soon as they are able.