Why Doesn't Stripe, Valued at $160 Billion, Go Public?

比推Publicado a 2026-03-10Actualizado a 2026-03-10

Resumen

Stripe, valued at $159 billion, and Plaid, valued at $8 billion, recently conducted tender offers, reflecting a structural shift in how companies access capital and provide liquidity. This trend allows firms to bypass traditional IPOs, avoiding dilution and regulatory burdens. The private secondary market reached $240 billion in 2025, surpassing global IPO proceeds. Companies now wait an average of 16 years to go public, and private market assets have doubled to $22 trillion over 12 years. New infrastructure layers like Forge and EquityZen facilitate secondary trading, while platforms like Robinhood’s Ventures Fund I are opening private markets to retail investors. However, risks include structural complexity, valuation opacity, and counterparty risks. Despite a 2025 IPO rebound, many companies trade below their offering prices, making tender offers an attractive alternative amid geopolitical and macroeconomic uncertainty.

Author: Michiel Milanovic

Original Title: What does Stripe at $160B mean for traditional IPOs?

Compiled and Edited by: BitpushNews


In the past two weeks, payments giant Stripe announced a tender offer valuing the company at up to $159 billion;

Meanwhile, fintech infrastructure provider Plaid also completed a tender offer valued at $8 billion;

A few days later, Robinhood's Ventures Fund I listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), allowing retail investors direct access to a basket of private company equities;

These events are interconnected, reflecting a structural shift in how companies access capital, provide liquidity, and ultimately consider going public.

Why is that?

Let's start with Plaid.

Founded in 2013, the company acts as an infrastructure layer connecting consumers' bank accounts to financial apps like Venmo, Robinhood, and Chime. Apps pay Plaid to allow users to seamlessly connect banks, verify credentials, and share account information. This is particularly valuable in the US, where regulations do not mandate banks to share information with third parties (unlike the UK's Open Banking and the EU's PSD2).

In fact, it's reported that half of all Americans have indirectly used Plaid's services through various financial apps. The company's valuation peaked at $13.4 billion in 2021, and it was once planned to be acquired by Visa for $5.3 billion, but regulators ultimately blocked the deal. After being repriced at $6.1 billion in April 2025, its latest $8 billion tender offer reflects renewed momentum. Its revenue is expected to reach $430 million in 2025, with 20% of its new customers now being AI companies.

Meanwhile, Stripe is a payments giant founded in 2010 by brothers John Collison and Patrick Collison.

Leveraging a decade of exponential growth in e-commerce, the company recently reported impressive 2025 performance. Total payment volume reached $1.9 trillion, a 34% year-over-year increase, equivalent to roughly 1.6% of global GDP. While revenue is undisclosed, sources estimate at least $5 billion in revenue for 2024. Today, Stripe's revenue suite alone (including Stripe Billing, Invoicing, Tax, etc.) is on track to achieve $1 billion in annual recurring revenue (ARR).

Beyond payments, Stripe is actively building around cryptocurrency and Agentic Commerce, seeing them as catalysts for online consumption. It acquired stablecoin platform Bridge for $1.1 billion, bought wallet infrastructure provider Privy, and is building Tempo—an L1 blockchain focused on payments, currently being tested by Visa, Nubank, and Klarna. Its latest $159 billion tender offer price represents a 74% increase from last year.

ARK Invest Big Ideas 2026

A tender offer is a secondary transaction that allows new or existing investors to buy shares directly from employees and early shareholders. It provides liquidity without diluting the company's equity or incurring the regulatory and structural burdens of an IPO.

Stripe and Plaid are part of a larger trend: companies successfully bypassing public markets in favor of private transactions.

It's reported that Anthropic is exploring a tender offer valuing it over $350 billion, while Revolut recently completed an employee share sale at a $75 billion valuation.

In 2025, private secondary market transaction volume soared to $240 billion, up from $162 billion in 2024. In comparison, global capital raised through traditional IPOs was about $140 billion.

As private capital markets boom, the pace of companies entering public markets has slowed. Companies now wait an average of 16 years to go public, 33% longer than a decade ago. Over the past 12 years, total private market assets have more than doubled to $22 trillion. Some of the world's most valuable companies, including SpaceX and OpenAI, remain private, with valuations that rival or exceed those of large public companies.

This has led to two key market developments:

First, the birth of new capital market infrastructure layers. We recently analyzed the rise of platforms like Forge and EquityZen, which facilitate secondary trading of private company shares. Charles Schwab acquired Forge for $660 million in November, while Morgan Stanley acquired EquityZen in October (amount undisclosed).

Second, the opening of private markets to retail investors. Robinhood's newly formed Ventures Fund I listed on the NYSE last Friday, raising $658 million and holding shares in large private companies like Ramp, Stripe, and Revolut. This isn't the first; Destiny Tech100 listed in March 2024, offering a portfolio of 100 VC-backed companies, including SpaceX and OpenAI. But Robinhood can distribute directly to its 28 million users, and as with its performance in public stocks, it has a proven track record of popularizing asset classes historically reserved for institutional investors.

Beyond this, the Trump administration signed an executive order last summer paving the way for $8.7 trillion in 401(k) retirement accounts to invest in alternative assets like cryptocurrency and private markets.

We see these as major catalysts for further growth, but they also expose some hidden risks.

One is the structural complexity behind purchasing private stock. Brokers often bundle these shares into their own special purpose vehicles (SPVs) and charge fees, and these SPVs sometimes hold positions in other vehicles. These overlapping counterparty risks and fees can obscure what assets investors actually own. The next macroeconomic downturn will be accompanied by the unraveling of SPV positions and ensuing litigation.

Then there's the issue of valuation transparency. Valuations of private companies are often anchored to the most recent funding round, which might only happen once or twice a year. This limits price discovery and creates a gap between the reported net asset value (NAV) and the price public markets are willing to pay.

The Financial Times recently reported that Robinhood's Ventures Fund I fell 11% on its first day of trading. Meanwhile, Destiny Tech 100 once traded at nearly 20 times its NAV. This unpredictability is not ideal for retirement savings accounts.

Meanwhile, regulators are beginning to push reforms to make public markets more attractive. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce expressed concerns about private markets in a February speech: the pressure for companies to go public has diminished, but private markets lack equivalent price discovery mechanisms, accessibility, and liquidity.

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins recently proposed a three-pillar plan to "make IPOs great again" (his words) by easing disclosure requirements and reforming securities litigation. Whether these reforms will be implemented remains to be seen.

Private transactions aside, IPOs did see a significant rebound in 2025. Eleven venture-backed fintech companies, including Circle and Klarna, went public, with more on the way. Kraken and Bitgo have filed confidentially, while companies like Ramp and Gusto are preparing by cleaning up cap tables, hiring new CFOs, or engaging investment banks. F-Prime estimates the total market capitalization of fintech could grow from $947 billion to $1.2 trillion.

Whether these companies get their desired price is another matter. By year-end, only 2 of the 11 companies were trading above their IPO price. Chime was privately valued at $25 billion but went public at $13.5 billion. Klarna went public at $17.3 billion but ended the year at $10.9 billion.

With heightened geopolitical tensions and an uncertain macroeconomic outlook, companies still on the sidelines may find that the tender offer playbook is the path of least resistance. For now, at least, liquidity in private markets remains sufficient to absorb the supply of these unicorns.


Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

Bitpush TG Discussion:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7618554

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is a tender offer and why are companies like Stripe and Plaid choosing this method over a traditional IPO?

AA tender offer is a secondary transaction that allows new or existing investors to buy shares directly from employees and early shareholders. It provides liquidity without diluting the company's equity and avoids the regulatory and structural burdens of an IPO. Companies like Stripe and Plaid are choosing this method because it allows them to access capital and provide liquidity while remaining private, bypassing the complexities and scrutiny of public markets.

QHow has the private market's growth impacted the timeline for companies to go public?

AThe growth of private markets has significantly extended the average time companies wait before going public. Currently, companies wait an average of 16 years to IPO, which is 33% longer than a decade ago. This is due to the abundance of private capital, which allows companies to stay private longer and achieve valuations that rival or exceed those of large public companies.

QWhat are some of the risks associated with retail investors gaining access to private company stocks through vehicles like Robinhood's Ventures Fund I?

ARisks include structural complexity, as brokers often bundle these stocks into special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that may hold positions in other instruments, creating overlapping counterparty risks and fees that obscure what investors actually own. There is also a lack of valuation transparency, as private company valuations are based on infrequent funding rounds, limiting price discovery and creating a gap between reported NAV and what public markets are willing to pay.

QWhat recent regulatory changes have made alternative assets like private market investments more accessible to retail investors?

ALast summer, the Trump administration signed an executive order that paved the way for 401(k) retirement accounts, which hold $8.7 trillion in assets, to invest in alternative assets like cryptocurrencies and private markets. This change has significantly increased retail investor access to these previously institution-only asset classes.

QDespite the rise of tender offers, did the IPO market see a resurgence in 2025, and what was the performance of these newly public companies?

AYes, the IPO market significantly rebounded in 2025, with 11 venture-backed fintech companies going public, including Circle and Klarna. However, by the end of the year, only 2 of these 11 companies were trading above their IPO price. Many companies, such as Chime and Klarna, went public at valuations significantly lower than their previous private valuations.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Podcast Notes | Conversation with GSR Asset Management Head: To Determine if This Crypto Rally is Real, Just Watch the Lending Rates on Aave

Podcast Summary: Dialogue with GSR's Head of Asset Management: To Determine if This Crypto Rally is Real, Just Check Lending Rates on Aave Andy Baehr, Managing Director of Asset Management at GSR, discusses the current crypto market, characterizing it as stuck in a state of "ambivalence" with short-lived, unsustainable rallies. He outlines a simple framework: the market moves between "ambivalence" and "conviction" (sustained upward momentum). Currently, every rally resembles a single-stage rocket booster that quickly fizzles out. Baehr identifies three key signals to watch: 1) DeFi lending rates, 2) the potential passage of the CLARITY Act, and 3) the market forming a consensus on the "Fed hawkish peak." He emphasizes that the most immediate indicator for the sustainability of the recent CPI-triggered rally is the USDC borrowing rate on Aave, currently around 3.75%—close to U.S. Treasury yields. The absence of a credit spread indicates low leverage demand and a lack of market energy. He explains that a healthy, sustained rally requires layered buying pressure. Last year's rally progressed from an ETH short squeeze to crypto-native trader influx and finally to ETF inflows. Currently, this structure is missing. Other potential structural buyers like Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) companies are absent, and ETF flows have proven transient. Baehr notes that while small-cap crypto tokens outperformed large caps in Q2—a potential sign of capitation in major assets—capital is also flowing to more exciting opportunities like AI stocks and tech IPOs, leaving crypto sidelined. Regarding DeFi, he highlights that platforms like Aave provide a clear, real-time signal of leverage demand through their supply/demand-driven interest rates. A significant, sustained rate increase would signal genuine market conviction. He also observes the quiet emergence of fixed-income-like products and vaults in DeFi. On regulation, the probability of the CLARITY Act passing before the August 7th deadline has dropped linearly from 75% to below 40% on Polymarket. Baehr suggests its passage would be treated as a bullish surprise, a potent driver for price movement. However, political hurdles, including ethical clause debates and disclosures about the First Family's crypto profits, remain significant obstacles. Ultimately, the market awaits clarity on the Fed's terminal rate under Chair Warsh. Until the "Fed Solstice"—the point where the market collectively understands the peak of hawkish policy—sustained conviction will be difficult to achieve.

marsbitHace 3 min(s)

Podcast Notes | Conversation with GSR Asset Management Head: To Determine if This Crypto Rally is Real, Just Watch the Lending Rates on Aave

marsbitHace 3 min(s)

7 Months After the Collapse of Huiwang, Southeast Asia's Escrow Platforms Undergo a Major Reshuffle

Following the collapse of Huione Pay—dubbed the "Alipay of Southeast Asia"—seven months ago, the region's underground financial guarantee platform sector is undergoing a significant reshuffle. This power vacuum has been swiftly filled by emerging platforms such as XinBi, Tiger/Navigator, JinBei (renamed JinBo), Dali/Tiancheng, and FullyLight. These platforms, operating largely via Telegram and offering services like escrow for illicit transactions, have absorbed the vast user base and markets left behind by Huione. While positioning themselves as "trust intermediaries," their primary clientele consists of networks involved in online scams, money laundering, illegal gambling, and even human trafficking. For instance, the Tiger/Navigator platform explicitly provides "escrow" services for kidnapping-for-ransom operations ("强押车交易"). Data underscores the immense scale: Huione alone processed over $103 billion in cryptocurrency payments and facilitated over $31 billion through its escrow market before its downfall, linking it to Cambodia's notorious Prince Group. Since its collapse, competitors have seen explosive growth. For example, the XinBi platform has accumulated over $1.6 billion in total USDT revenue, while platforms like NewPay, OkPay (under Dali), and FullyLight Wallet collectively processed over $4.8 billion in USDT in a single year. This ecosystem thrives in regions like Cambodia and Myanmar, where regulatory gaps allow these platforms to act as critical financial infrastructure for sprawling cybercrime industries, from scam compounds to online casinos. The article concludes that the moniker "Southeast Asian Alipay" is a misnomer, obscuring the platforms' fundamental role in enabling serious criminal enterprises rather than representing legitimate financial innovation.

Odaily星球日报Hace 1 hora(s)

7 Months After the Collapse of Huiwang, Southeast Asia's Escrow Platforms Undergo a Major Reshuffle

Odaily星球日报Hace 1 hora(s)

The Changing Landscape: What Are Crypto VCs Experiencing?

Title: The Shifting Landscape of Crypto Venture Capital The era of dedicated crypto venture capital funds is undergoing a significant transformation. Once essential for navigating the sector's complexity and high risk, these specialized funds are now facing an identity crisis as the market matures. This shift mirrors historical patterns in other specialized investment classes like cleantech and SPACs, where initial information advantages dissipate as technologies become mainstream and integrated into existing industry frameworks. The article argues that crypto is reaching a critical inflection point, transitioning from a "building phase" to an "integration phase." Major players like Stripe, BlackRock, and Visa now engage with crypto not for its novel mechanics but as a foundational financial infrastructure. Their needs—regulatory compliance, banking partnerships, distribution channels—align with traditional fintech, a domain easily understood by large, generalist funds like Sequoia and Founders Fund. This evolution creates a "barbell effect" within the VC landscape. On one end are massive, diversified platforms that can incorporate crypto as one vertical among many. On the other are small, nimble funds focused on niche, experimental projects. The middle ground—medium-sized dedicated crypto funds—is being squeezed out. Their typical fund size makes it impossible to generate sufficient returns solely from early-stage crypto bets, yet they cannot compete with giants for later-stage deals. Consequently, leading crypto-native firms like Paradigm and Framework Ventures are expanding into AI, robotics, and other sectors, driven partly by LP pressure for better returns amid a broader VC DPI crisis. Others, like Dragonfly and a16z, have narrowed their crypto focus predominantly to financial infrastructure like stablecoins, reframing the sector's core narrative. For crypto entrepreneurs, this consolidation presents challenges. While generalist funds offer larger checks and broader resources, crypto projects now compete fiercely with AI for attention and capital within these firms. Furthermore, the long-term, non-commercial foundational work that built the ecosystem—funded by dedicated crypto VCs—is less likely to attract generalist capital focused on direct returns. The conclusion is that "crypto investor" as a standalone category is becoming obsolete, akin to "internet investor." Crypto is becoming a baseline infrastructure layer. The future will see a barbell structure: large-scale growth financing handled by generalist funds, while pioneering, speculative projects are funded by small, specialized vehicles. The dedicated crypto funds of the 2017-2021 boom, which incubated core infrastructure, are giving way to this new, bifurcated reality.

Foresight NewsHace 1 hora(s)

The Changing Landscape: What Are Crypto VCs Experiencing?

Foresight NewsHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片