Lina Khan, who made her name as one of Washington’s toughest antitrust enforcers, couldn’t resist a victory lap this week when Figma debuted on the New York Stock Exchange. In a pithy afternoon post on X (formerly Twitter), Khan highlighted Figma’s first-day surge—shares opened at $33 and closed north of $115—and argued that the IPO “is a great reminder that letting startups grow into independently successful businesses, rather than be bought up by existing giants, can generate enormous value.”

It’s a pointed nod to Adobe’s abandoned $20 billion bid for Figma back in late 2023. That deal stalled amid regulatory skepticism in the U.S., the European Union and the U.K., where competition watchdogs warned the acquisition could hobble Figma as an “effective competitor” to Adobe’s dominant suite of creative tools. Adobe ultimately conceded that there was “no clear path” to approval and walked away from the deal.

Khan’s FTC wasn’t pulling punches at the time. Under her leadership, the agency challenged Big Tech’s acquisitive habits, even driving some firms toward “reverse acqui-hires”—a workaround where buyers recruit talent and license technology instead of snapping up startups outright. That trend hasn’t evaporated with her exit from the agency earlier this year, and it underscores how deeply her approach rattled Silicon Valley.

Figma’s IPO performance is nothing short of spectacular. After trading was briefly halted for volatility, shares ended the day up roughly 250%, valuing the company at nearly $68 billion—more than three times Adobe’s spurned offer. Only about a third of Figma’s roughly 37 million shares changed hands, signaling that this wasn’t about capital raising so much as a public showcase of the company’s newfound independence.

For venture capital firms like Sequoia and Iconiq, and for thousands of Figma employees holding options, that pop represents massive windfalls. Analysts note that these gains have reignited discussions about the relative merits of blocking mergers versus letting market dynamics play out. Some see Figma’s splashy debut as proof that regulators were right to intervene; others argue the company’s success stems squarely from its own innovation engine.

Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives typifies the skeptical camp. “Figma is a massive success, but it’s because of the company’s innovative growth and not due to the FTC and Khan,” he told Business Insider, asserting that Figma’s product-led momentum would have prevailed regardless of regulatory headwinds.

Khan’s rejoinder is that robust competition breeds better outcomes for employees, investors and consumers alike—and that a world with “six or seven or eight potential suitors” is healthier than one dominated by “just one or two.” She has long argued that only a sliver of deals ever get “a second look,” countering charges of overreach by emphasizing the broader benefits of careful merger review.

Whether you chalk up Figma’s triumph to its own creativity or to a regulatory check on consolidation, one thing is clear: the IPO has crystallized the stakes in the ongoing debate over Big Tech’s future. For regulators, it offers a case study in how antitrust can shape market trajectories. For entrepreneurs, it’s a reminder that the path to independence—whether via IPO or otherwise—can sometimes outshine the exit by acquisition.

In the end, Khan’s celebratory post may be more than just a personal vindication—it’s a rallying cry for those who believe that competition, not consolidation, sparks the most innovation. And if Figma’s first dance on the public market is any indication, that case has never looked stronger.