> What this really shows us is that this "for-profit wrapper around a non-profit" shenanigans was doomed to fail in the first place. I disagree. The for-profit

> What this really shows us is that this "for-profit wrapper around a non-profit" shenanigans was doomed to fail in the first place. I disagree. The for-profit arm was always meant to be subservient to the non-profit arm - the latter practically owns the former. A proper CEO would just try to make money without running afoul of the non-profit’s goals. Yes that would mean earning less or even not at all. But it was clearly stated to investors that profit isn’t a priority.