> anyone going to work for a sub of a non-profit would probably be aware that the potential there was capped compared to traditional for profit corps I think t

> anyone going to work for a sub of a non-profit would probably be aware that the potential there was capped compared to traditional for profit corps I think this is where this all went off the rails. It's very clear that a huge percentage of the staff (I think the last numbers I saw was that over 85% of the staff had signed the letter urging the board to resign) were hired with incredibly big compensation packages, predicated on the giant equity valuation. It is not surprising that those people did not turn out to be there due to being big believers in the mission of the non-profit, or that they expected those compensation packages to be real.