Key Takeaways
- Andrew Feldman of Cerebras describes the going public process as an administrative "garbage" fire, detailing meetings with "130 attendees" and endless document reviews where even commas moved, often with "no value added."
- Feldman points out that an IPO does not fundamentally change daily operations; “the next morning you've sold no more stuff” and “your engineering projects have made no progress.”
- Will Marshall of Planet Labs emphasizes that public status is a "maturing event" that grants "credibility" and trust, which is crucial for securing large government and enterprise customers.
- Marshall notes that these customers, including entire “countries that are fully dependent on us,” require assurance of long-term stability and access to capital that a public listing provides.
- The optimal timing for an IPO is a difficult lesson, with Feldman half-joking that the best way to get it right is “by getting it wrong for a decade.”
The Disagreement
Andrew Feldman and Will Marshall both took their deep tech companies public, but they recount the journey with markedly different lenses. Feldman sees an IPO as a massive, often thankless, administrative burden. He describes a process choked with "garbage," where endless meetings with 130 attendees and document reviews for trivial edits consume vast amounts of founder time with little operational payoff.
“You go there and you have this enormous event and the next morning you've sold no more stuff,” Feldman said. “Your engineering projects have made no progress since the day you weren't public. And you go back to work.” For Feldman, the act of going public is less about enhancing the core business and more about an external validation event that doesn't move the needle on engineering or sales on day two.
Marshall, conversely, views the IPO as a strategic imperative, a powerful tool for unlocking specific business advantages. While acknowledging the capital and liquidity benefits, he stresses the "credibility" it lends, especially for securing high-stakes customers.
Marshall put it plainly: “The going public gives you access to liquidity for early shareholders... it gives you cash for the company... and I do think it helps your business as well because the maturing event gives you more credibility to various customers.” He recounted how large government entities and even entire “countries that are fully dependent on us giving them information” deeply care about a company's long-term stability. For these customers, being public signals permanence and access to capital, making the company a more trustworthy, long-term partner. "It's legitimizing," Marshall concluded.
Who's Right (and When They're Wrong)
Both Feldman and Marshall are correct, but they are talking about different aspects of the same event and perhaps catering to different strategic needs. Feldman captures the raw internal experience: the operational drag, the distraction from product, and the often-minimal immediate impact on day-to-day building. If your primary focus is solely on iterating product quickly, selling to early adopters, or serving a customer base that values agility over established public-company bona fides, Feldman's perspective is a potent warning against the administrative toll.
Marshall, however, highlights the external, strategic benefits that become essential as a company scales and aims for larger, more risk-averse clients. For companies like Planet Labs, whose customers literally depend on their long-term existence, the public stamp isn't just a vanity metric; it's a sales enabler. It signals stability, compliance, and access to capital that a private entity, no matter how well-funded, struggles to match. If your ambition includes securing multi-year contracts with governments, large enterprises, or any entity where trust and perceived permanence are paramount, Marshall's argument becomes undeniable. The "garbage" is the price of admission to a bigger, more demanding market.
The real tension lies in timing. Taking Feldman's comment on getting timing "wrong for a decade" to heart, founders must weigh when the internal cost of the "garbage" is offset by the external strategic gains, particularly in customer acquisition and trust, that Marshall describes.
What to Do With This
Before you even think about bankers or roadshows, analyze your ideal customer profile. Specifically, identify the 2-3 highest-value customer segments you cannot currently land as a private company due to perceived lack of stability, long-term commitment, or capital access. If these segments represent a substantial portion of your future growth and require the "legitimacy" of a public company—like those governments Marshall mentioned—then begin to factor the administrative "garbage" into your long-term strategic planning as a necessary investment for unlocking those specific markets. If not, continue to optimize your private operations and enjoy the freedom from those "130 attendee" Zoom calls.