Ah, that is the old CCP argument. We are accountable to the people, we are a meritocracy that makes great decisions...but we won't let you vote. When people s

Ah, that is the old CCP argument. We are accountable to the people, we are a meritocracy that makes great decisions...but we won't let you vote. When people start talking a lot about control (it is kind of a tech bro meme at this point), you can be sure that they are the kind of person who shouldn't be in control. And btw, the cost of screwing minority shareholders has been basically zero in the US (you usually only see this kind of emerging markets) but it never stays zero. And typically, these companies will trade at a discount. In reality, you have to give up control. When you take outside money, which you will have to do, then you give up control. I have no idea why people view this as particularly problematic (again, this is the CCP approach)...if you don't like oversight or accountability, don't start a company. Simple. (Tech CEOs seem to write about this endlessly...you will notice that there isn't a particularly consistent position. They like juicing the stock market so they can bump their pay package but they don't like the oversight. These two things are connected. The reason public markets can produce bad outcomes is because they become linked to CEO pay...in tech, there is a CEO celebrity culture which always sees people side with executives...but most of these people are incompetent...Facebook's executives seem to have legendary status, despite them managing to literally destroy a monopoly...so when you see someone saying they want to retain "control", I would ask why. It usually indicates incompetence).