Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

Antitrust goals vs. “big is bad”

• Strong split between those who see size itself as dangerous (concentration of power, harder to correct abuse) and those who argue antitrust should only target clear, provable consumer harm or specific anti‑competitive conduct.
• Critics say Khan abandoned the “consumer harm” standard and pursues mergers “based on vibes,” disproportionately targeting Big Tech while ignoring other concentrated sectors (e.g., healthcare).
• Supporters reply that Big Tech had decades of lax scrutiny, that monopolies historically required aggressive antitrust to unwind, and that preventing concentration is necessary to preserve real competition.

Was blocking Adobe–Figma a success?

• Pro‑Khan side: Figma now has a market cap roughly 3× Adobe’s offer, employees and early shareholders participate in upside, and design tools remain more competitive than if Adobe had absorbed a key rival.
• Skeptics: you can’t prove the counterfactual; Figma might still have thrived inside Adobe, or the IPO pop could prove temporary. Using one outcome as “vindication” is seen as selection bias.
• Some argue the real win is structural: keeping a strong independent competitor out of an already‑dominant creative‑tools portfolio.

Impact on startups, exits, and M&A

• One camp says more IPOs and fewer mega‑acquisitions are better: value accrues to broader public markets, founders get more than one or two megacorp suitors, and competition isn’t systematically removed through “cannibal capitalism.”
• Others claim Khan’s stance chilled even benign or small acquisitions, hurting founders, early employees, and investors who rely on M&A as the only realistic exit.
• Several note a new workaround: big incumbents “reverse acqui‑hire” teams (poach key staff and license IP), leaving companies as shells and early employees or investors with little.

Monopolies, competition, and consumer welfare

• Debate over whether tech markets self‑correct (examples cited: Yahoo, Kodak, BlackBerry, Sears) versus history where monopolies entrenched themselves until broken up.
• Some emphasize that monopolies can undercut rivals by cross‑subsidizing and then “enshittify” once competition disappears; others say most dominant firms simply offer better products or economics.
• Figma itself is noted as near‑monopolistic in UI design, but commenters distinguish “earned” dominance (better product) from dominance via acquisition.

IPO mechanics and fairness

• Thread dives into IPO “pops,” underpricing, and how gains accrue: allocations to large institutional clients vs. ordinary investors.
• Opinions split on whether this is an acceptable feature of capital markets or yet another undemocratic driver of inequality.