Here is the thing: this allows someone like Zuckerberg to separate his control/power within the company he founded, from his wealth. I can easily imagine him be

Here is the thing: this allows someone like Zuckerberg to separate his control/power within the company he founded, from his wealth. I can easily imagine him being in a position where he truly has more wealth than he wishes to keep for himself (I cannot imagine any way in which I could spend 35.7 billion USD on myself, hell 0.1% of that seems far beyond enough for life to me, never mind the 1% he intends to keep), and yet would not give 0.01% of his say in how Facebook is run for anything in the world. So, this gives three alternatives: 1) He keeps all his stock, retains control, can't spend the money and can't donate it. The money serves to "keep the score" but his goal is to keep control of Facebook. His interest is still to run Facebook according to his ideas of how it should be run. He is not particularly aligned with stockholders who just wish to make money from FB, because, as we have established, he doesn't care about his FB stock's being worth any more in cash directly (unless there is a risk of it collapsing by 99%, but that is an extreme scenario). He cares only in so much as it allows him to exert more power through Facebook in the direction of whichever "historical legacy" goals he has. 2) He gradually sells FB stock as is, slowly cedes control of his company to other investors. Donates the 35.7 billion over time. 3) The company accepts this split. Zuckerberg still keeps control of the company and still runs it according to his wishes without caring directly about personal financial gain, just as in case 1. He is now able to donate (or use) the money as in 2, but faster. So, if you accept that he is sincere in that he doesn't want to accumulate more money in his person but use it for charitable giving (and again, there is no reason to believe he wants get richer, there is little you can buy for yourself with 35.7 billion that 357 million won't get you), then the best alternative for everyone is #3. Facebook will be run just the same as if he couldn't sell his shares, yet the money will be used for charity. p.s. Whether charity at scale should or should not be tax deductible is another matter, and there are arguments either way, but that is sort of independent of the analysis above.