Spotify has never been afraid of upsetting the establishment.
The Swedish, streaming music pioneer, which has 70 million subscribers and 140 million active users, was for years attacked by musicians for the amount of royalties it pays artists for streams.
Radiohead's Thom Yorke famously described it as "the last desperate fart of a dying corpse."
Taylor Swift even more famously withdrew her entire back catalogue from the service, due to qualms with its free tier, which allows people to use Spotify, interspersed with ads, without paying for it.
Yet Spotify didn't flinch.
And it was Swift who ultimately backed down, returning to the platform (which admittedly pays her a lot of money) last year.
Yorke's solo music also resurfaced on the service recently.
Now, Spotify is poised to challenge the status quo again, on arguably a much grander scale.
The company, which is valued at $US8.5 billion ($10.6 billion) by private market investors, is reportedly planning to debut on the New York Stock Exchange in coming weeks.
But instead of conducting an stockmarket float the normal way - hiring underwriters, doing a big roadshow, issuing new shares and selling some existing ones - it is planning a 'direct listing'.
Which means, on a certain date (expected to be in the next few months), owners of Spotify shares who want to sell them, will be able to do so on the world's biggest stock exchange, and investors - from big institutions, to ordinary Mums and Dads, will be able to buy them.
The direct listing mechanism is rarely used, particularly for a company of Spotify's size and stature. Yet at least one small shareholder I spoke to, Australian venture capitalist Adam Milgrom, supports the move.
"There are a large number of very successful companies that need to provide their investors with liquidity, but have other considerations. And a direct listing is one way to solve that problem" Milgrom, who acquired a small stake in Spotify on the secondary market, told me.
Much commentary has suggested Spotify is using the direct listing mechanism because it doesn't need to raise fresh capital, and because cutting out investment banks from the process will save it money on fees.
Yet the reality is more complicated than that.
Spotify has still hired investment banks, and its expected to pay them not insigificant amounts (albeit less than what they usually get for normal IPOs) to help the the process go smoothy.
The reason for the direct listing likely has something to do with Spotify's complex "cap table" - or shareholder base.
At the moment it reads like a who's who of capitalism.
Spotify has attracted investment from prominent institutions such as Accel Partners (an early backer of Australia's Atlassian) TPG Capital (the private equity house that attemped to acquire Fairfax Media, publisher of this column, last year), and managed fund giant Fidelity Investments.
Investors also include major corporations including Chinese internet giant Tencent, as well as the world's biggest record labels, who were given equity in Spotify as part of critical licensing deals.
Whether these institutions, companies and record labels, which all have wildly different strategic priorities, sell shares into the direct listing, remains to be seen.
Another interesting question with Spotify's direct listing is whether it will set a precedent other highly valued start-ups might follow.
There are now more than 200 'unicorns' - private, unlisted start-ups 'valued' at $US1 billion, around the world. The most recent entrant to the unicorn club - online design software company Canva - happens to hail from Sydney.
All of these companies will eventually face pressure from their investors to 'exit' by either listing on a sharemarket on selling to another company.
Most will need, or want, to raise capital more to sustain growth. The traditional IPO route could still very much make sense for them.
But some, like Spotify, might not need to raise fresh capital, and might have complicated investor considerations to deal with.
A direct listing might appeal to them - if Spotify's succeeds.
Despite the barrage of criticism levelled at Spotify over the years, a strong case can actually be made that it helped save the music industry.
Revenue for the global recorded music industry returned to growth last year - thanks to rising adoption of streaming services, of which Spotify is easily the biggest.
The annual cost of a streaming subscription (around $US100) works out to more than what the average consumer spent on music right at the peak of the CD era.
So, in streaming, the music industry, one of the first to be ravaged by the internet, finally has a viable path forward.
Spotify managed to convince some of its fierect critics of these merits. Convincing sharemarket participants it is a worthwhile investment will be another matter entirely.
Streaming music is a tough business. Licensing costs are high, and some key players (such as Apple and Amazon) use their services as loss leaders for other products.
Yet Spotify remains the industry leader, and for his part, Milgrom says he won't be selling his shares any time soon.
"It's a super interesting company. Streaming has won. There is no turning back. And they are the best at it".
