>If public equity markets don't work, the alternative is more and more of wealth creation happening privately I say that's a fair point, for the reasons you de

>If public equity markets don't work, the alternative is more and more of wealth creation happening privately I say that's a fair point, for the reasons you describe, that there's less oversight, and more mammoth capital sources that have an appetite for VC at nearly any stage. The "aren't encouraged to think long term" is an odd bit. You are right but at the same time it seems to be at least imo that we (the market) want these ownership structures. We want Page and Bezos and Zuckerberg and Musk, but we want to own it too. Snapchat and its S&P denial would be the battleground there. So I think to paraphrase you latter idea "we might to formalize a public equity model that is more flexible around a founder/visionary, or we might need to be more explicit about who controls a company, and what can be done to change that control." I suppose the balance to me is between making the burden of public markets lighter on companies with longer term vision, and exposing retail markets to a wild frontier that is imo only appropriate for more sophisticated parties.