UK Investment in £6.45bn Kraken Sparks Concerns Over Public Money Use
The UK's state-owned British Business Bank (BBB) has made a significant investment in tech firm Kraken Technologies, valued at $8.65 billion (£6.45 billion), sparking concerns over the use of public money for non-essential purposes.
While the BBB's mission is to drive economic growth by supporting smaller businesses, it appears that its latest move may not be entirely aligned with this goal. With a stake of just 0.35% in Kraken, the investment seems more like a symbolic gesture than a crucial factor in the company's success.
Moreover, Kraken is far from a small business, with revenues of $500 million and a valuation that would place it in the FTSE 100 index if it were a UK-listed company. It has already secured funding through a US fund and is likely to secure further investment at a significant multiple of its revenue. The BBB's involvement, therefore, seems superfluous.
The £25m investment also raises questions about the role of public money in supporting established companies with strong market connections. Kraken is described as being "headquartered in London and New York", which may suggest that its listing venue is more a matter of where it can secure a higher valuation rather than a decision driven by government influence.
Industry insiders have welcomed the investment, claiming it provides a seat at the table for the UK taxpayer. However, critics argue that this stake amounts to little more than a token gesture, with 0.35% ownership being akin to a stool in the corner of the room.
The BBB's explanation for its investment suggests that it was attracted by Kraken's growth prospects and offered a unique opportunity to make a financial return. While understandable from a business perspective, this approach appears to be at odds with the organization's stated mission and seems to represent a form of mission creep.
As the permanent capital of the BBB reaches £25.6 billion, concerns over public money use are likely to grow. With increased direct investment limits, it may be expected that more established companies like Kraken will receive funding in the future. However, questions remain about the accountability and transparency surrounding these investments, particularly when they appear to serve specific government interests rather than the stated objectives of the BBB.
The decision to support Kraken with £25m highlights a need for greater clarity on the rules governing public investment in established companies. If the new rules are not explicitly set out, it is likely that such investments will continue to raise eyebrows among those scrutinizing the use of taxpayers' money.
The UK's state-owned British Business Bank (BBB) has made a significant investment in tech firm Kraken Technologies, valued at $8.65 billion (£6.45 billion), sparking concerns over the use of public money for non-essential purposes.
While the BBB's mission is to drive economic growth by supporting smaller businesses, it appears that its latest move may not be entirely aligned with this goal. With a stake of just 0.35% in Kraken, the investment seems more like a symbolic gesture than a crucial factor in the company's success.
Moreover, Kraken is far from a small business, with revenues of $500 million and a valuation that would place it in the FTSE 100 index if it were a UK-listed company. It has already secured funding through a US fund and is likely to secure further investment at a significant multiple of its revenue. The BBB's involvement, therefore, seems superfluous.
The £25m investment also raises questions about the role of public money in supporting established companies with strong market connections. Kraken is described as being "headquartered in London and New York", which may suggest that its listing venue is more a matter of where it can secure a higher valuation rather than a decision driven by government influence.
Industry insiders have welcomed the investment, claiming it provides a seat at the table for the UK taxpayer. However, critics argue that this stake amounts to little more than a token gesture, with 0.35% ownership being akin to a stool in the corner of the room.
The BBB's explanation for its investment suggests that it was attracted by Kraken's growth prospects and offered a unique opportunity to make a financial return. While understandable from a business perspective, this approach appears to be at odds with the organization's stated mission and seems to represent a form of mission creep.
As the permanent capital of the BBB reaches £25.6 billion, concerns over public money use are likely to grow. With increased direct investment limits, it may be expected that more established companies like Kraken will receive funding in the future. However, questions remain about the accountability and transparency surrounding these investments, particularly when they appear to serve specific government interests rather than the stated objectives of the BBB.
The decision to support Kraken with £25m highlights a need for greater clarity on the rules governing public investment in established companies. If the new rules are not explicitly set out, it is likely that such investments will continue to raise eyebrows among those scrutinizing the use of taxpayers' money.
. It's like throwing money at a already established company and hoping for the best. I mean, they're doing pretty well without us anyway 
. And what's the real goal here? Is it just to show we care about tech startups or can we actually drive growth through this investment? 
. If public money is being used for investments like this, shouldn't there be some clear guidelines on how it's going to make an impact? I don't think 0.35% ownership is exactly what I'd call "game changing" 
.
. Is our £25m investment really making a difference or are we just trying to keep up with the big boys? 
And those industry insiders saying they're getting a seat at the table is kinda laughable 
We need clearer rules on public investments in big companies. This isn't right, let's get to the bottom of it! 
. It's almost as if the BBB is just trying to tick a box, rather than making a genuine effort to support smaller businesses.
. If public money is being invested in established companies like Kraken, we need to know that there are clear rules and guidelines in place to ensure accountability and transparency 
. Otherwise, it just looks like a game of "who knows what" when it comes to the use of taxpayers' money 
.
if they're gonna put 0.35% of their £25m into it, might as well just give them the whole thing 
we need more answers about what's really going on with public money 
and how this kinda investment fits into the bigger picture 
. We need clearer guidelines on such investments to ensure accountability and transparency 
. We need more transparency about how this money is being used and why it's being given to certain companies 
. Like, what's the real motive behind the UK's £25m investment? Is it really just about supporting a small business or is there more to it? I mean, have you seen the valuation of this company? It's like they're basically giving them a free pass 
. Mark my words! 
and another £20m for that startup in berlin that doesn't even exist yet 
think they're just trying to fill up their 25.6 billion pot with any old tech firm that swings by, no questions asked 
. It's time for some transparency around these investments, in my opinion 
.
.
. Otherwise, it's just going to lead to more scrutiny and questions like this one 
You're there, but nobody really cares about what you have to say! I just wish they'd be more transparent about how this money is being used and what accountability looks like for these investments. Transparency matters, you know? 