1. No co-op works this way. New hires almost never have the same privileges and voting rights as original members. There is usually a kind of "vesting" period f

1. No co-op works this way. New hires almost never have the same privileges and voting rights as original members. There is usually a kind of "vesting" period for voting rights since members need to be sure everyone is committed to the mission of the co-op. 2. See my point on 1. In the long term however, the kind of mutiny you suggest could be a good and necessary thing. In a co-op, you are not starting "your" company, but a cooperative. The whole point is that it is owned and run by everyone, it's not the founder's special baby. If the founder can't see what's best for the company and its workers while everyone else can, then they should definitely be overruled. 3. The incentive is to be founding something that can change the exploitative nature of the economy we live in. You're not starting a co-op to get rich off the work of others in implementing your amazing idea for an ice-cream delivery app. You're making a product that a community is invested in, both in the production and consumption, where everyone truly benefits because they all have a share of power over the project. A co-op couldn't buy up entire city blocks because one small board decided on it, or pollute a water supply because one small group of investors didn't give a fuck. That is why we need co-ops. I've been involved with starting businesses and I think co-ops are great.