It's not a power grab so much as maintaining their current power. Without this provision, the stock split would result in the founders' voting power being cut i

It's not a power grab so much as maintaining their current power. Without this provision, the stock split would result in the founders' voting power being cut in half, in which case they would of course elect not to split the stock. If I misunderstand, please correct me. As I see it, instead of splitting 10x voting stock held by the founders, they are issuing non-voting stock to everyone. I'm curious to know how they will differentiate between voting and non-voting common shares in the stock market - it seems one is worth at least marginally more than the other.