Issuer-Centric Platforms vs Broker Marketplaces
Hari Raghavan, ex-COO of Forge, on late-stage investing and facilitating secondary sales
Carta’s cap table business pushes it toward company friendly liquidity, not open market liquidity. When the same platform sells record keeping software to the issuer, it has to protect the company’s control over who buys shares, when trades happen, and how much information gets exposed. That makes Carta strongest at company run tenders and structured auctions, while brokers like Forge are freer to optimize for matching buyers and sellers across messy one off trades.
-
In private markets, the company can block transfers, cap who participates, and decide when a window opens. Nasdaq Private Market and CartaX both fit this issuer controlled model more than a continuous marketplace model. They are tools for planned liquidity events, not always on exchanges.
-
Forge, SharesPost, EquityZen, and similar brokers grew up around the opposite workflow. They start with a seller who wants liquidity now, find a buyer, then work through ROFRs, board approvals, transfer limits, or forward structures. That is more like prime brokerage than exchange software.
-
This creates white space for employee first and investor first products. Vested’s framing is that platforms tied too closely to issuers cannot push as hard for individual shareholders, because helping employees at arm’s length can conflict with the company relationship that drives the core business.
The market is heading toward a split stack. Issuer centric platforms will run approved tender programs and price discovery windows, while broker and financing products will serve shareholders and investors who need liquidity outside those windows. The winning private market infrastructure will connect these layers, not force one side to serve everyone.