10 ms·

Who Owns Nebula?

270 points by mintplant 2y ago

magnetowasright 2y ago
A lot of weird, strongly held, strangely inflammatorily worded takes with exactly no apparent evidence. I'm not sure why Nebula upsets this person sufficiently to write ...that. I usually enjoy an unnecessarily inflammatory hit piece on something uncontroversial because it's the investigation along the way that makes things interesting but there's none of that.
danpalmer 2y ago
Interesting analysis! From the facts in this post, I'd reach the following speculation: the creators have a contract that entitles them to vote on certain types of company action, a share of 50% of the revenue, and potentially representation of their votes in the form of one or two of the existing board seats. Essentially there being some company bylaws in place to enact that "ownership" mechanism. This would match what Standard have said about the setup, would match the Wendover documentary and its reference to "wizardwry" making it all work, and provide for input from creators and revenue to creators. Combining this with the phantom stock and how a sale would be handled, I think calling this "ownership" when summing it up in a single word for the purposes of a YouTube advert is... uncontroversial? The alternative would be having each creator on the cap table, and my understanding is that is actually quite tricky to do at scale, and brings significant legal and tax implications for the creators and Nebula. While this is all very interesting, and I appreciate the blog post, I do wonder if the answer here just boring.
- moi2388 2y ago
  That might very well be the case. It would probably be more honest to give the content creators stocks or say “partly ran by content creators” instead of “owned by content creators” in this case, no?
  - derefr 2y ago
    The problem with that is that if you truly own something, you have the right to sell that thing, and nobody can say who you can sell it to. Give it six months and it wouldn’t be “creator-owned” any more, due to cash-strapped creators dumping stock for a payday. A co-op is structurally as much about ensuring that employees can’t transfer their equity to non-employees as it is about ensuring that employees have equity. You can’t get the semantics of a co-op ownership structure just by doing regular things with a C-corp; you need extra hacks, like these bylaws.
    - danpalmer 2y ago
      That might be the ultimate version of "ownership" but it's by no means the only useful version. Startups typically issue shares or options but restrict selling of them. Does that mean you don't own them? Well it's complicated, but in my opinion it's far more useful to say that yes you do own them than no you don't. I as an employee of a public company receive compensation in the form of shares, but I'm only allowed to sell them at certain times of year, do I not own them? Again it's more realistic to say I do. I also don't get to vote with mine, as is the same for other non-voting shares that are fairly common. Ownership is a nuanced concept, and taking a hard line on just one feature of ownership is not necessarily the right choice in general discussion.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        I never took options in compensation packages as "ownership". I just see them as fancy mechanisms to give you the potential for more money without giving you more money outright. In the case of startups, which are not yet public companies, even less so, as those shares can be dilluted, etc. In the case of public conpanies I see them much in the same way I see shares of conpanies I buy in the stock market. I have no meaningful ownership of the company in those cases, it is just where I park some money looking for a return in investment. A coop is actually a form of ownership, even if ironically you can't sell that ownership.
      - PawgerZ 2y ago
        > Startups typically issue shares or options but restrict selling of them They have to explicitly restrict selling of the shares through contract means. That's because ownership is the legal right to possess, use, or give away (sell) a thing. Likewise, Nebula has to explicitly restrict selling of partial ownership through contract means.
- wodenokoto 2y ago
  I don't know about American coop laws, but in Denmark there are diary companies owned by farmers (nearly 10.000 farmers own Arla) and Coop Amba, which owns many super market chains have over 2 million members, that each have a voting right in the company. You can totally scale this type of ownership.
  - danpalmer 2y ago
    I'm not an expert by any means, but my understanding is that partnerships are very different legal entities to a typical US LLC. I believe a partnership is typically in many ways closer to what I suggested may be the case with Nebula – where the company has bylaws and contracts in place internally to make this work. On the other hand for an LLC, LTD, or other similar types of company, being a shareholder is a more public position, and might require reporting, or updating documents registered with the local government every time it changes. That's fine for tens of shareholders in a private company, but not for thousands or millions.
    - singleshot_ 2y ago
      I would be very surprised if there were reporting rules about being a shareholder in an LLC.
  - SamWhited 2y ago
    In the U.S. it really depends what state you're in. Some states have co-ops as a specific business vehicle and in many of them the co-op model is very different. There are big farm co-ops, EMCs, etc. in the U.S. (Land-o-Lakes and Florida Natural Oranges come to mind, I believe they're both fully farmer owned), but I'm not super familiar with them or how their model works, but in Georgia where I am at least co-ops tend to work in one of two ways: For smaller co-ops that don't bring in members very often or who are just getting started they often create an LLC and put in the articles of incorporation that all future members will receive an equal share and equal voting rights. This does require filing paperwork for every new member, but keeps taxes easy. For co-ops that expect to have lots of members rapidly (consumer co-ops that sell shares in their store to whomever wants one, for example) they normally form a corporation and allocate a certain number of shares up front and indicate that any member has equal voting rights, etc. this makes the taxes harder, but is a lot less paperwork since you have to file stuff about the number of shares sold at the end of the quarter (or whenever, I forget the exact reporting details, been a while since I've done this) but not every single time you add a member. Georgia (and a lot of other states) also have specific laws for EMCs and other specific types of co-ops, so it's really fragmented. Take this with a grain of salt, it's just two examples of how a lot of smaller co-ops do things.
- sitharus 2y ago
  It's definitely an interesting solution to a very similar problem I was looking at a few years ago - how to take on external investment in a co-operative company. I'm not in the US, so I can't comment on the options for Nebula, but where I live coops are a specific type of legal company which would encompass what Nebula want - a company where profit is divided between members in proportion to their contribution. As part of that the only owners allowed are contributors, and the only people who can receive a profit share are the owners. If you want to stop contributing you have to stop owning, and there's no value to the shares. So you can't take on equity funding, only debt. This structure seems to be made to work around that, structuring it like a regular stock company but with a sale trap to make it unappealing to sell for a quick return.
  - jszymborski 2y ago
    > So you can't take on equity funding, only debt. Is this a huge problem?
    - jasode 2y ago
      >Is this a huge problem? It depends on what the company is trying to build. The dollar amount of debt a company can take is limited by its revenue because it requires ongoing payments to service that debt. Whether it's debt from a bank business loan or by issuing corporate bonds, they both require real revenue to make those payments. Equity investments don't have a ceiling capped by the company's present day earnings. This is important if the company has ambitions to build something that can't get any meaningful revenue on day 1. Instead, they need the money to pay salaries, cloud bills, office rent, etc to build the product and hope the later revenues will justify the investment. E.g. the early Google startup in 1998 took $25 million VC investment and didn't have meaningful revenue until +4 years later in 2002. A company with $0 revenue can't get a $25 million loan with a 4-year deferred payment plan. Yes, there's such a thing as "convertible debt-to-equity" but that's a financial vehicle for investors that doesn't apply to co-operatives.
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
- csomar 2y ago
  > a share of 50% of the revenue According to the blog post, they get 50% of the profit which would be much lower than 50% of the revenue. This is worse than other profit-sharing platforms. But hey, you own 50% of a shadow equity or whatever that means.
- paxys 2y ago
  The big source for confusion IMO is that there is no single universally-understood definition of "creator". The site was founded and is controlled by ~6 people who create content for YouTube and other platforms. So does that make Nebula "creator-owned" by default? Or does every content creator on the platform have to have some form of ownership? And then does that ownership have to be equitable? Or will one token share with no voting or profit share still qualify?
  - mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
    Any confusion is Nebula's fault by keeping the details of ownership secret. They could clarify what they mean when they claim in bold on their front page that "Nebula is creator-owned and operated."
prithvi24 2y ago
Honestly, I feel like the criticism is missing some key points. Sam and the other founders are creators who've put a ton of work and resources into Nebula. They've made awesome original content like Jetlag and have invested heavily to support other creators on the platform. Nebula gives budgets for creators to produce their own shows, and they get a share of the revenue from subscribers they bring in—I wouldn't be surprised if they earn from views too. So saying it's misleading doesn't sit right with me. Creators on Nebula definitely get a bigger piece of the pie compared to other platforms. It might not be a perfect co-op, but it's way more creator-friendly than most out there.
- gautampk 2y ago
  It /is/ misleading to say or imply that it is a co-op, though. It isn’t. It may be a progressive company which provides very favourable terms to creators, but it isn’t a co-op.
  - prithvi24 2y ago
    Yeah, I see your point—it might be misleading to label Nebula as a co-op since it technically isn't one. But I think what's important is how much Nebula does to empower creators compared to other platforms. The founders are creators who've invested a lot to make it a place where content makers get more support and a bigger share of the revenue. Even if it's not a co-op, it still feels like a step in the right direction for giving creators more control and benefits than they'd get elsewhere.
    - gautampk 2y ago
      Fully agree that it’s a step in the right direction. The thing that gives me pause is essentially ‘if they want to be a co-op, why aren’t they just a co-op’? I appreciate that in a full co-op dilution is a concern if they need external investors (e.g., Curiosity Stream) but you could have a structure with 50% co-op ownership and 50% capital ownership, so dilution as the platform expands would only affect the other co-operative owners.
  - 2y ago
richardwhiuk 2y ago
For most respects and purposes, Standard Broadcast is the creators on Nebula.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > For most respects and purposes, Standard Broadcast is the creators on Nebula Then why shell them into a separate vehicle? The purpose is to create two tiers of creators. That's fine. Some took a risk. Others didn't. But it's dishonest to then claim one is being transparent when the only reason for this structure, apart from incompetence or convenience, is obfuscation.
  - pikminguy 2y ago
    It's kind of a historical happenstance. Standard was created first as a company offering support services for creators. Nebula was one of Standard's offerings which grew to be the main thing.
- weinzierl 2y ago
  That was my thinking as well and unfortunately the article doesn't go into that direction. For example: Do we know how many creators they have. Do they all have the same contracts and rights or are some of them just (affiliated) "creators". To put this to an extreme: If only the six owners were creators they could claim 100% goes to the creators without lying.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Real Engineering did a video titled "How Nebula Works" [1]. It details the technical problems. But seemingly deliberately dodges the legal and financial questions I clicked on that video to answer. I love Nebula. But it's obvious that there is a shady component to their structure that prevents transparency that senior leadership knows about and knowingly obfuscates. I'm not arguing for a creator-owned co-operative; that would render the equity worthless, and they want (and should) retain the option to sell. But Nebula et al made a big fuss about refusing VC because of the incentives that creates while legally creating a two-tier structure that mimics those same incentives. [1] https://nebula.tv/videos/realengineering-how-nebula-works https://nebula.tv/videos/realengineering-how-nebula-works
- chrisoverzero 2y ago
  You clicked on a video from Real Engineering titled “How Nebula Works” hoping to get answers to legal and financial questions? I think videos with titles like “How Internal Combustion Engines Work” would also deliberately dodge legal and financial questions. Because they’re not what the video is about.
  - WorldMaker 2y ago
    The creator of the channel Legal Eagle is also one of the six main Standard Broadcast owners (with Real Engineering) mentioned in the article, so it sounds like we are waiting for the Legal Eagle "How Nebula Works" video.
ehhthing 2y ago
I think the last few paragraphs go off the rails. If creators didn't own (at least in some way) some controlling stake in Nebula, why would they publicly say that they do? Moreover, why would creators join Nebula if the terms were not beneficial to them in the first place? I find it funny that the author writes > It’s equally possible, however, that the system was set up in order to keep any meaningful power away from the creators. Does the author really think that the chance that all of these creators are lying to their audiences is just as likely as them all telling the truth? Also, the author even admits > As I mentioned previously, some ownership of Standard has since been offered to other creators through stock options, but it’s unclear how much or what type of stock those options represent. Owning equity (and thus voting power) in Standard also means that the creator has the ability to vote on how Standard operates Nebula. So the conclusion that the creators have no control over Nebula literally cannot be true. So the statement that "the creators own 0 percent of Nebula" is just misleading, and yet this is somehow the important conclusion that the author wants readers to know...?
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  The author’s thesis is that the creators are being tricked. They own some complex bespoke right in Nebula (“an entirely new kind of cooperative corporate governance”), which they’re told and believe is equivalent to ownership, but actually it’s a sham that will break down if Standard ever wants to do something that isn’t in the creators’ interests.
  - ehhthing 2y ago
    The author doesn't go through this in nearly enough detail to make that argument convincing. Rather than spending the entire time trying to find what the "real" ownership amount, the author should've spent the time contextualizing the situation. The author basically spends the entirety of one sentence dismissing the idea that there could exist a corporate governance model that allows creators to have a meaningful way to direct the company's decision making process and spends the rest of the time on a wild goose hunt to figure out the "actual" ownership percentages. It was pretty obvious from the beginning given the repeated mentions of complex ownership models that the "real" numbers were not going to mean that creators owned "real" equity in the company. An investigation about what this actually means would've been a much better way to write this kind of essay. Instead all we got was a long article with a conclusion that was reasonably obvious in hindsight, and no real evidence to support the thesis that "it's all just smoke and mirrors".
ParadisoShlee 2y ago
You're saying standard has the fiscal responsibility of their entirely company?! Give dave an award for being awesome and running a successful company with a single investor.
rambobambo 2y ago
How to create a similar site for my local community?
- felurx 2y ago
  Do you mean a video sharing site? Maybe self-hosting PeerTube might be something for you. It's designed with federation (with other instances via ActivityPub) in mind, but the FAQ say that can be disabled. Of course, there probably are other software projects (like maybe DTube) that have different priotities and ideas, might be worth a bit of research.
LammyL 2y ago
This corporate structure seems a bit sketchy for creators if the platform wants to sell. If they sell Nebula then creators split half of the profits. If they sell Standard then creators get nothing.
- cruffle_duffle 2y ago
  Why would Standard get sold though? The value to a buyer is nebula. In fact perhaps they intentionally structured things so as to detach Nebula from Standard to make it easier to spin off.
  - LammyL 2y ago
    It sounds like standard is just a holding company for Nebula to add a layer of protection in the ownership structure.
jiveturkey 2y ago
> It’s possible that the terms are so favorable for creators that their shadow equity is as good as actual ownership. It’s equally possible, however, that the system was set up in order to keep any meaningful power away from the creators. I very much suspect the latter. Otherwise why be so circuitous and secretive about it. I've never heard of shadow equity before. But clearly it isn't equity, ie it isn't ownership. So it almost certainly has no governance rights. Now it may entitle the creators to 50% in the event of a sale, but who's to say it's Nebula that's sold, vs Standard, and who's to say it's sold at all. Rather the standard (excuse the pun) approach of selling off the assets without selling the company.
timenova 2y ago
While their corporate structure is shadowy, their revenue distribution between creators is not. The source for this is in this video [0][1] by TLDR Business. Essentially, all the money collected by subscriptions is paid to creators based on the number of views on their videos. [0] https://nebula.tv/videos/tldrbusiness-how-does-tldr-really-make-money https://nebula.tv/videos/tldrbusiness-how-does-tldr-really-m... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clfti6Do9lc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clfti6Do9lc
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
noname120 2y ago
[flagged]
weinzierl 2y ago
"On August 23, 2021, the Company purchased a 12% ownership interest in Watch Nebula LLC for $6,000." Surely this must be 6 million USD. I first thought this is a typo, but it is like that in the original SEC filing. Is this some convention I am just oblivious about?
- noname120 2y ago
  From the SEC FORM D[1]: > Total Amount Sold $6,000,000 USD You're referring to the note 2 of the prospectus supplement no. 12[2]. It indicates the following at the top of the notes section: > (in thousands, except share and per share data) [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1881238/000188123821000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1881238/000188123821... [2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776909/000121390021058727/ea150369-424b3_curiosity.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776909/000121390021...
- WorldMaker 2y ago
  A lot of Corporate financial reports have a baseline of $1k, $10k, $100k or sometimes even $1 million that their figures and charts never have reason to drop below (or are just taken as rounding errors) anywhere in the report and so they just establish the baseline early in the report and all numbers are relative to that. It seems like Curiosity Stream's report was using a $1k baseline and you just multiply all the financial numbers by 1,000.
stuaxo 2y ago
When it comes to a democratic cooperative, how does this compare to say Mondragon ?
eterevsky 2y ago
To summarize, 17% is owned by Curiosity Stream, the rest by Standard Broadcast which in turn is owned by Wendover Production and some other creators.
blagie 2y ago
This is approximately what I figured. Whenever I do deeper due diligence, this sort of scam comes up. Literally "whenever." For the record, Nebula is primarily owned and operated by creators. Those creators are: * Dave Wiskus * Brian McManus (Real Engineering) * Alex (LowSpecGamer) * Devin Stone (Legal Eagle) * Thomas Frank * Sam Denby (Wendover Productions) The other creators are getting scammed. This is not an uncommon model. This is almost identical to how edX was structured and the marketing literature is nearly identical too. It was owned and run by universities. Just not the universities who made up the "consortium." If there were no scam, there would absolutely no reason for the non-public non-answers. If Nebula weren't scamming, they would disclose the "financial and legal wizardry." None of this prevented me from giving Nebula money. As I said, this kind of issues comes up literally every time I do due diligence. I am disappointed in specifically Brian McManus for being involved in a scam, but this kind of scam is omnipresent with quite literally every organization I've done due diligence on, and usually much worse.
- staunton 2y ago
  I don't understand what the scam is. The structure is opaque which indicates there might be some scam but how would one know what it is?
  - jszymborski 2y ago
    The accusations of it being a scam are speculative for sure, but they come from a relatable place: the inability to understand why creators would agree to take on "shadow equity" while a small handful of creators get actual real equity. It sounds like a few creators can sell the equity that is built by many creators at any time, but that all the other creators can only realize their equity if and when the company exits. If someone bought tickets to a steam ship that stipulated that in the event of an imminent iceberg collision, they can only get on the life-boats after a small group of people ransacked the ship and left on the first life-boat, I might assume that they'd been scammed to. But perhaps they were just desperate or didn't think icebergs were a risk. Regardless, I just know I wouldn't buy that ticket.
bogtog 2y ago
> Shadow Equity (sometimes called Phantom Stock) isn’t real stock. It’s basically just an IOU that’s worth the same dollar value as the actual stock. The creators will get paid 50% of the proceeds in the event the company sells, but legally they don’t actually own any of the company. To my untrained eye, this just seems like owning stock without voting privileges, which seems okay? Is the fear that the voters will eventually just change the creator profit sharing to zero and milk the company dry rather than selling it?
- maweki 2y ago
  > seems like owning stock Shadow Equity usually doesn't pay dividends. So if the stock devalues due to payed out dividends (and the shadow stock has no voting power), it's the creators paying out the investors from their share.
nottorp 2y ago
... and why is it called the same as the Nebula Awards?
- runnr_az 2y ago
  The term is nebulous
jamesholden 2y ago
I was thinking about joining them to try it out.. but now I feel yucky.
- drbscl 2y ago
  Even with this obfuscation, it is still more fair to its creators than most other platforms. It's just not quite the co-op structure their marketing makes it out to be, which is indeed disingenuous (IMO).
astura 2y ago
TL;DR: 1) a group of content creators created a company 2) that company runs a streaming platform where they also allow outside content creators to use with (at least) a profit sharing agreement that includes ongoing profit as well as profit from the a sale of the company, should they sell it. 3) that platform also took in a single minority investor at some point 4) some rando on Medium is getting wrapped around the axle because they think the outside creators are calling this "ownership."
- yaur 2y ago
  One has to wonder if the creators got 50% of the sale to curiosity stream.
jszymborski 2y ago
I'm cancelling my subscription. I was always suspicious of the "50:50 SB/Ceator" deal. The real way to do something like this imho is via a cooperative, with investors like CuriosityStream and SB providing capital loans. That said, the "ownership" claim is apparently provably false and I've been lied to. The company has operated dishonestly, and frankly the biggest reason I had a subscription was because of what I thought was an equitable ownership structure for creators.
- armoredkitten 2y ago
  To me, there's no evidence in any of this that would indicate the creators are misinformed or being scammed. In reality, they know their primary source of revenue is coming from Youtube, and it is a frequent complaint, especially for content creators who do anything marginally political or controversial, that they are demonetized or hit with copyright strikes (even in clear cases of fair use) and have to deal with the faceless Google behemoth trying to reverse these automated decisions. The end result of all this is that their revenue stream is unstable, and they are reminded of it frequently. To me, the fact that many of them clearly find Nebula a more suitable arrangement for them is still an indicator to me that, if I want to support the creators, Nebula is a better way to do that. Obviously, you can make your own decision on that, and sure, if you feel lied to, I can appreciate being upset about that. But maybe most of these content creators are less concerned with the ownership (they get 0% stake in Google, after all) and more concerned with the profit sharing arrangement. If so, I'm still happy to support them in that.
  - jszymborski 2y ago
    I never said they were scammed, but I was indeed misled by dishonest marketing, and frankly I think creators are also to blame for spouting lies about ownership. I supported Nebula because I think a creator's co-op is a beautiful project. I was willing to compromise on the co-op idea when I thought it was a 50:50 ownership structure but this is nothing close to equitable in my mind. I'll spend the money I save on Nebula on monthly donations to creators. I look forward to supporting a creators co-op if a promising one is ever made.
paxys 2y ago
Whenever someone answers "it's complicated" to what should be a simple question, you know there's a scam involved.
guipsp 2y ago
Why is this person who, as far as I can tell, is not, has never been, or has any intentions of being a creator on nebula complaining that creators are being screwed over? Surely if you were going to publish this piece, you'd get the opinion of at least one nebula creator?
- runnr_az 2y ago
  Yeah... Doesn't seem fair to imply that it's a big secret if you don't ask.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
paxys 2y ago
TL;DR Nebula is a streaming service. It has a parent company (Standard Broadcast) which owns $83% of the service and has 3 out of 4 board seats. An external public company (Curiosity Stream) owns the remaining 17% and 1 board seat. Standard Broadcast is owned by 6 individuals, some of them popular YouTubers. Content creators who post on Nebula get 50% of the service's total profits (based on watch time). Content creators (other than the 6 mentioned above) don't own any shares in Nebula, but if the service is ever sold, they get 50% of the proceeds from the sale. This doesn't, however, apply to Standard Broadcast or Curiosity Stream, which can and are sold/traded independently. Whether Nebula is "creator-owned" or not, as they proudly proclaim front and center on their website and marketing materials, is left as an exercise for the reader.
ryzvonusef 2y ago
You have two paths for a paid youtube competitor: ____ 1- Bulk Purchase, like Nebula (Sam from Wendover and other fellow youtubers); One subscription buys you access to ALL the channels in the network. Pros: * Single payment for users * gets better as more creators join * usually discounted if you consider per-channel cost Cons: * requires trust between the creators * can cause clash between creators on division of funds * requires a certain minimum output to maintain basic service * one cancelled creator can sink the service ____ 2-Per-channel subscription, like Floatplane (Made by Linus from the LinusTechTips channel); You have to pay seperately for each channel you want to get access to. Pros: * Can be cheaper if you only want access to a couple of specific creators * creators are not dependent on each other to maintain the service * you are seperate from other creator drama somewhat Cons: * Can become costly quickly if you want to subscribe to multiple creators * not that competitive with youtube premium * can cause comparison strife between creators for difference in subscription fee * can't take advantage of the synergist effect. _____ Basically Nebula has the advantage of having many high profile creators, and if you have a smaller following, you can take advantage of the rising tide and get a boost from them by joining the service. Also, Nebula seems to have ~ 50-ish creators from some pretty diverse set of topics, so it's not pigeonholed as Floatplane. Buuuuut...it's unsustainable I feel. As the number of creators increase, the disparity of what each creator brings and what they are owed will be unteneble. -- Floatplane, OTOH, has half the number of channels as Nebula, and they are mostly tech friends of Linus, so it's not only pigeonholed, but overshadowed by the anchor store that is LTT. By having seperate silos, you are unlikely to catch the wake of a rising ship to boost yourself. However, I feel that by cutting money out of the equation (Floatplane gets a fixed cut, rest, you earn of your own merits) it is in theory more sustainable; you have your own silo, and if one is sinking, you are not concerned. Also, there is a gun channel on the website, and they are there because they are tired of the censorship from Youtube. Being free from drama is a plus...don't subcribe if you don't want to watch! but not that free; they are still bound to the whims of payment processors, so if VISA/MASTERCARD/Whatever block them, they are SoL. They are not Only Fans level of free. ___ TBH, it's a pain to get people to pay, the friction is just too high. Nebula makes it easier than Floatplane, on the onset, even if it's not the best choice. But since when have people used logic where money is concerned?
NoGravitas 2y ago
I've long had the feeling that Nebula was kind of sketchy, ever since they kicked out J.T. (Second Thought), a founding member. I'm glad it's working out for Philosophy Tube and Jessie Gender, but I will not be surprised at all if there's not a total rug-pull some time in the future.
xd1936 2y ago
> Nebula the business is “Standard Broadcast LLC,” and is directly owned at the LLC level by me and 43 other creators (and growing). > Nebula the streaming video service (which controls the streaming revenue) is Watch Nebula LLC, which is about 83% owned by Standard Broadcast LLC, with the rest held by Curiosity Stream. All control and all board seats belong to Standard Broadcast LLC. > We use shadow equity for platform creators because assigning LLC-level equity would make signing new creators logistically impractical, and would have complex tax implications for every creator we bring in. US securities laws also are skewed in favor of the wealthy: it would be very expensive or potentially impossible for us to comply with them if we were issuing securities to small creators who aren’t accredited investors. > If substantial control of the streaming service ever changes hands, we are contractually required to split the proceeds 50/50 with the creators on the platform. 50% of streaming profits are distributed to creators based on watch time. Additionally, 1/3 of the revenue from any subscriber is allocated to the creator responsible for bringing in that subscriber. > Weird that he didn’t just ask. — Dave Wiskus, CEO of Nebula https://www.reddit.com/r/Nebula/comments/1ffnaza/comment/lmxu0r9/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Nebula/comments/1ffnaza/comment/lmx...
- gamblor956 2y ago
  we are contractually required to split the proceeds 50/50 with the creators on the platform. 50% of streaming profits are distributed to creators based on watch time. Additionally, 1/3 of the revenue from any subscriber is allocated to the creator responsible for bringing in that subscriber. For tax purposes, if the LLC is taxed as a partnership, these are all considered partnership interests.
- tredre3 2y ago
  > Weird that he didn’t just ask. Cameron did quote someone who asked him and the answer he got was "it’s complicated". There is no reason to think that asking again would have resulted in different/better answer. Plus, as we see, it's not that complicated. He explained the situation fully in one paragraph so why didn't he when asked in the past?
- socalnate1 2y ago
  This is the answer. This comment could have replaced that entire medium article and saved us all a lot of time.

270 points by mintplant 2y ago

A lot of weird, strongly held, strangely inflammatorily worded takes with exactly no apparent evidence. I'm not sure why Nebula upsets this person sufficiently to write ...that. I usually enjoy an unnecessarily inflammatory hit piece on something uncontroversial because it's the investigation along the way that makes things interesting but there's none of that.

danpalmer 2y ago

Interesting analysis! From the facts in this post, I'd reach the following speculation: the creators have a contract that entitles them to vote on certain types of company action, a share of 50% of the revenue, and potentially representation of their votes in the form of one or two of the existing board seats. Essentially there being some company bylaws in place to enact that "ownership" mechanism. This would match what Standard have said about the setup, would match the Wendover documentary and its reference to "wizardwry" making it all work, and provide for input from creators and revenue to creators. Combining this with the phantom stock and how a sale would be handled, I think calling this "ownership" when summing it up in a single word for the purposes of a YouTube advert is... uncontroversial? The alternative would be having each creator on the cap table, and my understanding is that is actually quite tricky to do at scale, and brings significant legal and tax implications for the creators and Nebula. While this is all very interesting, and I appreciate the blog post, I do wonder if the answer here just boring.

moi2388 2y ago
That might very well be the case. It would probably be more honest to give the content creators stocks or say “partly ran by content creators” instead of “owned by content creators” in this case, no?
- derefr 2y ago
  The problem with that is that if you truly own something, you have the right to sell that thing, and nobody can say who you can sell it to. Give it six months and it wouldn’t be “creator-owned” any more, due to cash-strapped creators dumping stock for a payday. A co-op is structurally as much about ensuring that employees can’t transfer their equity to non-employees as it is about ensuring that employees have equity. You can’t get the semantics of a co-op ownership structure just by doing regular things with a C-corp; you need extra hacks, like these bylaws.
  - danpalmer 2y ago
    That might be the ultimate version of "ownership" but it's by no means the only useful version. Startups typically issue shares or options but restrict selling of them. Does that mean you don't own them? Well it's complicated, but in my opinion it's far more useful to say that yes you do own them than no you don't. I as an employee of a public company receive compensation in the form of shares, but I'm only allowed to sell them at certain times of year, do I not own them? Again it's more realistic to say I do. I also don't get to vote with mine, as is the same for other non-voting shares that are fairly common. Ownership is a nuanced concept, and taking a hard line on just one feature of ownership is not necessarily the right choice in general discussion.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      I never took options in compensation packages as "ownership". I just see them as fancy mechanisms to give you the potential for more money without giving you more money outright. In the case of startups, which are not yet public companies, even less so, as those shares can be dilluted, etc. In the case of public conpanies I see them much in the same way I see shares of conpanies I buy in the stock market. I have no meaningful ownership of the company in those cases, it is just where I park some money looking for a return in investment. A coop is actually a form of ownership, even if ironically you can't sell that ownership.
    - PawgerZ 2y ago
      > Startups typically issue shares or options but restrict selling of them They have to explicitly restrict selling of the shares through contract means. That's because ownership is the legal right to possess, use, or give away (sell) a thing. Likewise, Nebula has to explicitly restrict selling of partial ownership through contract means.
wodenokoto 2y ago
I don't know about American coop laws, but in Denmark there are diary companies owned by farmers (nearly 10.000 farmers own Arla) and Coop Amba, which owns many super market chains have over 2 million members, that each have a voting right in the company. You can totally scale this type of ownership.
- danpalmer 2y ago
  I'm not an expert by any means, but my understanding is that partnerships are very different legal entities to a typical US LLC. I believe a partnership is typically in many ways closer to what I suggested may be the case with Nebula – where the company has bylaws and contracts in place internally to make this work. On the other hand for an LLC, LTD, or other similar types of company, being a shareholder is a more public position, and might require reporting, or updating documents registered with the local government every time it changes. That's fine for tens of shareholders in a private company, but not for thousands or millions.
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    I would be very surprised if there were reporting rules about being a shareholder in an LLC.
- SamWhited 2y ago
  In the U.S. it really depends what state you're in. Some states have co-ops as a specific business vehicle and in many of them the co-op model is very different. There are big farm co-ops, EMCs, etc. in the U.S. (Land-o-Lakes and Florida Natural Oranges come to mind, I believe they're both fully farmer owned), but I'm not super familiar with them or how their model works, but in Georgia where I am at least co-ops tend to work in one of two ways: For smaller co-ops that don't bring in members very often or who are just getting started they often create an LLC and put in the articles of incorporation that all future members will receive an equal share and equal voting rights. This does require filing paperwork for every new member, but keeps taxes easy. For co-ops that expect to have lots of members rapidly (consumer co-ops that sell shares in their store to whomever wants one, for example) they normally form a corporation and allocate a certain number of shares up front and indicate that any member has equal voting rights, etc. this makes the taxes harder, but is a lot less paperwork since you have to file stuff about the number of shares sold at the end of the quarter (or whenever, I forget the exact reporting details, been a while since I've done this) but not every single time you add a member. Georgia (and a lot of other states) also have specific laws for EMCs and other specific types of co-ops, so it's really fragmented. Take this with a grain of salt, it's just two examples of how a lot of smaller co-ops do things.
sitharus 2y ago
It's definitely an interesting solution to a very similar problem I was looking at a few years ago - how to take on external investment in a co-operative company. I'm not in the US, so I can't comment on the options for Nebula, but where I live coops are a specific type of legal company which would encompass what Nebula want - a company where profit is divided between members in proportion to their contribution. As part of that the only owners allowed are contributors, and the only people who can receive a profit share are the owners. If you want to stop contributing you have to stop owning, and there's no value to the shares. So you can't take on equity funding, only debt. This structure seems to be made to work around that, structuring it like a regular stock company but with a sale trap to make it unappealing to sell for a quick return.
- jszymborski 2y ago
  > So you can't take on equity funding, only debt. Is this a huge problem?
  - jasode 2y ago
    >Is this a huge problem? It depends on what the company is trying to build. The dollar amount of debt a company can take is limited by its revenue because it requires ongoing payments to service that debt. Whether it's debt from a bank business loan or by issuing corporate bonds, they both require real revenue to make those payments. Equity investments don't have a ceiling capped by the company's present day earnings. This is important if the company has ambitions to build something that can't get any meaningful revenue on day 1. Instead, they need the money to pay salaries, cloud bills, office rent, etc to build the product and hope the later revenues will justify the investment. E.g. the early Google startup in 1998 took $25 million VC investment and didn't have meaningful revenue until +4 years later in 2002. A company with $0 revenue can't get a $25 million loan with a 4-year deferred payment plan. Yes, there's such a thing as "convertible debt-to-equity" but that's a financial vehicle for investors that doesn't apply to co-operatives.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
csomar 2y ago
> a share of 50% of the revenue According to the blog post, they get 50% of the profit which would be much lower than 50% of the revenue. This is worse than other profit-sharing platforms. But hey, you own 50% of a shadow equity or whatever that means.
paxys 2y ago
The big source for confusion IMO is that there is no single universally-understood definition of "creator". The site was founded and is controlled by ~6 people who create content for YouTube and other platforms. So does that make Nebula "creator-owned" by default? Or does every content creator on the platform have to have some form of ownership? And then does that ownership have to be equitable? Or will one token share with no voting or profit share still qualify?
- mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
  Any confusion is Nebula's fault by keeping the details of ownership secret. They could clarify what they mean when they claim in bold on their front page that "Nebula is creator-owned and operated."

prithvi24 2y ago

Honestly, I feel like the criticism is missing some key points. Sam and the other founders are creators who've put a ton of work and resources into Nebula. They've made awesome original content like Jetlag and have invested heavily to support other creators on the platform. Nebula gives budgets for creators to produce their own shows, and they get a share of the revenue from subscribers they bring in—I wouldn't be surprised if they earn from views too. So saying it's misleading doesn't sit right with me. Creators on Nebula definitely get a bigger piece of the pie compared to other platforms. It might not be a perfect co-op, but it's way more creator-friendly than most out there.

gautampk 2y ago
It /is/ misleading to say or imply that it is a co-op, though. It isn’t. It may be a progressive company which provides very favourable terms to creators, but it isn’t a co-op.
- prithvi24 2y ago
  Yeah, I see your point—it might be misleading to label Nebula as a co-op since it technically isn't one. But I think what's important is how much Nebula does to empower creators compared to other platforms. The founders are creators who've invested a lot to make it a place where content makers get more support and a bigger share of the revenue. Even if it's not a co-op, it still feels like a step in the right direction for giving creators more control and benefits than they'd get elsewhere.
  - gautampk 2y ago
    Fully agree that it’s a step in the right direction. The thing that gives me pause is essentially ‘if they want to be a co-op, why aren’t they just a co-op’? I appreciate that in a full co-op dilution is a concern if they need external investors (e.g., Curiosity Stream) but you could have a structure with 50% co-op ownership and 50% capital ownership, so dilution as the platform expands would only affect the other co-operative owners.
- 2y ago

richardwhiuk 2y ago

For most respects and purposes, Standard Broadcast is the creators on Nebula.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> For most respects and purposes, Standard Broadcast is the creators on Nebula Then why shell them into a separate vehicle? The purpose is to create two tiers of creators. That's fine. Some took a risk. Others didn't. But it's dishonest to then claim one is being transparent when the only reason for this structure, apart from incompetence or convenience, is obfuscation.
- pikminguy 2y ago
  It's kind of a historical happenstance. Standard was created first as a company offering support services for creators. Nebula was one of Standard's offerings which grew to be the main thing.
weinzierl 2y ago
That was my thinking as well and unfortunately the article doesn't go into that direction. For example: Do we know how many creators they have. Do they all have the same contracts and rights or are some of them just (affiliated) "creators". To put this to an extreme: If only the six owners were creators they could claim 100% goes to the creators without lying.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Real Engineering did a video titled "How Nebula Works" [1]. It details the technical problems. But seemingly deliberately dodges the legal and financial questions I clicked on that video to answer. I love Nebula. But it's obvious that there is a shady component to their structure that prevents transparency that senior leadership knows about and knowingly obfuscates. I'm not arguing for a creator-owned co-operative; that would render the equity worthless, and they want (and should) retain the option to sell. But Nebula et al made a big fuss about refusing VC because of the incentives that creates while legally creating a two-tier structure that mimics those same incentives. [1] https://nebula.tv/videos/realengineering-how-nebula-works https://nebula.tv/videos/realengineering-how-nebula-works

chrisoverzero 2y ago
You clicked on a video from Real Engineering titled “How Nebula Works” hoping to get answers to legal and financial questions? I think videos with titles like “How Internal Combustion Engines Work” would also deliberately dodge legal and financial questions. Because they’re not what the video is about.
- WorldMaker 2y ago
  The creator of the channel Legal Eagle is also one of the six main Standard Broadcast owners (with Real Engineering) mentioned in the article, so it sounds like we are waiting for the Legal Eagle "How Nebula Works" video.

ehhthing 2y ago

I think the last few paragraphs go off the rails. If creators didn't own (at least in some way) some controlling stake in Nebula, why would they publicly say that they do? Moreover, why would creators join Nebula if the terms were not beneficial to them in the first place? I find it funny that the author writes > It’s equally possible, however, that the system was set up in order to keep any meaningful power away from the creators. Does the author really think that the chance that all of these creators are lying to their audiences is just as likely as them all telling the truth? Also, the author even admits > As I mentioned previously, some ownership of Standard has since been offered to other creators through stock options, but it’s unclear how much or what type of stock those options represent. Owning equity (and thus voting power) in Standard also means that the creator has the ability to vote on how Standard operates Nebula. So the conclusion that the creators have no control over Nebula literally cannot be true. So the statement that "the creators own 0 percent of Nebula" is just misleading, and yet this is somehow the important conclusion that the author wants readers to know...?

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
The author’s thesis is that the creators are being tricked. They own some complex bespoke right in Nebula (“an entirely new kind of cooperative corporate governance”), which they’re told and believe is equivalent to ownership, but actually it’s a sham that will break down if Standard ever wants to do something that isn’t in the creators’ interests.
- ehhthing 2y ago
  The author doesn't go through this in nearly enough detail to make that argument convincing. Rather than spending the entire time trying to find what the "real" ownership amount, the author should've spent the time contextualizing the situation. The author basically spends the entirety of one sentence dismissing the idea that there could exist a corporate governance model that allows creators to have a meaningful way to direct the company's decision making process and spends the rest of the time on a wild goose hunt to figure out the "actual" ownership percentages. It was pretty obvious from the beginning given the repeated mentions of complex ownership models that the "real" numbers were not going to mean that creators owned "real" equity in the company. An investigation about what this actually means would've been a much better way to write this kind of essay. Instead all we got was a long article with a conclusion that was reasonably obvious in hindsight, and no real evidence to support the thesis that "it's all just smoke and mirrors".

ParadisoShlee 2y ago

You're saying standard has the fiscal responsibility of their entirely company?! Give dave an award for being awesome and running a successful company with a single investor.

rambobambo 2y ago

How to create a similar site for my local community?

felurx 2y ago
Do you mean a video sharing site? Maybe self-hosting PeerTube might be something for you. It's designed with federation (with other instances via ActivityPub) in mind, but the FAQ say that can be disabled. Of course, there probably are other software projects (like maybe DTube) that have different priotities and ideas, might be worth a bit of research.

LammyL 2y ago

This corporate structure seems a bit sketchy for creators if the platform wants to sell. If they sell Nebula then creators split half of the profits. If they sell Standard then creators get nothing.

cruffle_duffle 2y ago
Why would Standard get sold though? The value to a buyer is nebula. In fact perhaps they intentionally structured things so as to detach Nebula from Standard to make it easier to spin off.
- LammyL 2y ago
  It sounds like standard is just a holding company for Nebula to add a layer of protection in the ownership structure.

jiveturkey 2y ago

> It’s possible that the terms are so favorable for creators that their shadow equity is as good as actual ownership. It’s equally possible, however, that the system was set up in order to keep any meaningful power away from the creators. I very much suspect the latter. Otherwise why be so circuitous and secretive about it. I've never heard of shadow equity before. But clearly it isn't equity, ie it isn't ownership. So it almost certainly has no governance rights. Now it may entitle the creators to 50% in the event of a sale, but who's to say it's Nebula that's sold, vs Standard, and who's to say it's sold at all. Rather the standard (excuse the pun) approach of selling off the assets without selling the company.

timenova 2y ago

While their corporate structure is shadowy, their revenue distribution between creators is not. The source for this is in this video [0][1] by TLDR Business. Essentially, all the money collected by subscriptions is paid to creators based on the number of views on their videos. [0] https://nebula.tv/videos/tldrbusiness-how-does-tldr-really-make-money https://nebula.tv/videos/tldrbusiness-how-does-tldr-really-m... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clfti6Do9lc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clfti6Do9lc

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

noname120 2y ago

[flagged]

weinzierl 2y ago

"On August 23, 2021, the Company purchased a 12% ownership interest in Watch Nebula LLC for $6,000." Surely this must be 6 million USD. I first thought this is a typo, but it is like that in the original SEC filing. Is this some convention I am just oblivious about?

noname120 2y ago
From the SEC FORM D[1]: > Total Amount Sold $6,000,000 USD You're referring to the note 2 of the prospectus supplement no. 12[2]. It indicates the following at the top of the notes section: > (in thousands, except share and per share data) [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1881238/000188123821000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1881238/000188123821... [2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776909/000121390021058727/ea150369-424b3_curiosity.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776909/000121390021...
WorldMaker 2y ago
A lot of Corporate financial reports have a baseline of $1k, $10k, $100k or sometimes even $1 million that their figures and charts never have reason to drop below (or are just taken as rounding errors) anywhere in the report and so they just establish the baseline early in the report and all numbers are relative to that. It seems like Curiosity Stream's report was using a $1k baseline and you just multiply all the financial numbers by 1,000.

stuaxo 2y ago

When it comes to a democratic cooperative, how does this compare to say Mondragon ?

eterevsky 2y ago

To summarize, 17% is owned by Curiosity Stream, the rest by Standard Broadcast which in turn is owned by Wendover Production and some other creators.

blagie 2y ago

This is approximately what I figured. Whenever I do deeper due diligence, this sort of scam comes up. Literally "whenever." For the record, Nebula is primarily owned and operated by creators. Those creators are: * Dave Wiskus * Brian McManus (Real Engineering) * Alex (LowSpecGamer) * Devin Stone (Legal Eagle) * Thomas Frank * Sam Denby (Wendover Productions) The other creators are getting scammed. This is not an uncommon model. This is almost identical to how edX was structured and the marketing literature is nearly identical too. It was owned and run by universities. Just not the universities who made up the "consortium." If there were no scam, there would absolutely no reason for the non-public non-answers. If Nebula weren't scamming, they would disclose the "financial and legal wizardry." None of this prevented me from giving Nebula money. As I said, this kind of issues comes up literally every time I do due diligence. I am disappointed in specifically Brian McManus for being involved in a scam, but this kind of scam is omnipresent with quite literally every organization I've done due diligence on, and usually much worse.

staunton 2y ago
I don't understand what the scam is. The structure is opaque which indicates there might be some scam but how would one know what it is?
- jszymborski 2y ago
  The accusations of it being a scam are speculative for sure, but they come from a relatable place: the inability to understand why creators would agree to take on "shadow equity" while a small handful of creators get actual real equity. It sounds like a few creators can sell the equity that is built by many creators at any time, but that all the other creators can only realize their equity if and when the company exits. If someone bought tickets to a steam ship that stipulated that in the event of an imminent iceberg collision, they can only get on the life-boats after a small group of people ransacked the ship and left on the first life-boat, I might assume that they'd been scammed to. But perhaps they were just desperate or didn't think icebergs were a risk. Regardless, I just know I wouldn't buy that ticket.

bogtog 2y ago

> Shadow Equity (sometimes called Phantom Stock) isn’t real stock. It’s basically just an IOU that’s worth the same dollar value as the actual stock. The creators will get paid 50% of the proceeds in the event the company sells, but legally they don’t actually own any of the company. To my untrained eye, this just seems like owning stock without voting privileges, which seems okay? Is the fear that the voters will eventually just change the creator profit sharing to zero and milk the company dry rather than selling it?

maweki 2y ago
> seems like owning stock Shadow Equity usually doesn't pay dividends. So if the stock devalues due to payed out dividends (and the shadow stock has no voting power), it's the creators paying out the investors from their share.

nottorp 2y ago

... and why is it called the same as the Nebula Awards?

runnr_az 2y ago
The term is nebulous

jamesholden 2y ago

I was thinking about joining them to try it out.. but now I feel yucky.

drbscl 2y ago
Even with this obfuscation, it is still more fair to its creators than most other platforms. It's just not quite the co-op structure their marketing makes it out to be, which is indeed disingenuous (IMO).

astura 2y ago

TL;DR: 1) a group of content creators created a company 2) that company runs a streaming platform where they also allow outside content creators to use with (at least) a profit sharing agreement that includes ongoing profit as well as profit from the a sale of the company, should they sell it. 3) that platform also took in a single minority investor at some point 4) some rando on Medium is getting wrapped around the axle because they think the outside creators are calling this "ownership."

yaur 2y ago
One has to wonder if the creators got 50% of the sale to curiosity stream.

jszymborski 2y ago

I'm cancelling my subscription. I was always suspicious of the "50:50 SB/Ceator" deal. The real way to do something like this imho is via a cooperative, with investors like CuriosityStream and SB providing capital loans. That said, the "ownership" claim is apparently provably false and I've been lied to. The company has operated dishonestly, and frankly the biggest reason I had a subscription was because of what I thought was an equitable ownership structure for creators.

armoredkitten 2y ago
To me, there's no evidence in any of this that would indicate the creators are misinformed or being scammed. In reality, they know their primary source of revenue is coming from Youtube, and it is a frequent complaint, especially for content creators who do anything marginally political or controversial, that they are demonetized or hit with copyright strikes (even in clear cases of fair use) and have to deal with the faceless Google behemoth trying to reverse these automated decisions. The end result of all this is that their revenue stream is unstable, and they are reminded of it frequently. To me, the fact that many of them clearly find Nebula a more suitable arrangement for them is still an indicator to me that, if I want to support the creators, Nebula is a better way to do that. Obviously, you can make your own decision on that, and sure, if you feel lied to, I can appreciate being upset about that. But maybe most of these content creators are less concerned with the ownership (they get 0% stake in Google, after all) and more concerned with the profit sharing arrangement. If so, I'm still happy to support them in that.
- jszymborski 2y ago
  I never said they were scammed, but I was indeed misled by dishonest marketing, and frankly I think creators are also to blame for spouting lies about ownership. I supported Nebula because I think a creator's co-op is a beautiful project. I was willing to compromise on the co-op idea when I thought it was a 50:50 ownership structure but this is nothing close to equitable in my mind. I'll spend the money I save on Nebula on monthly donations to creators. I look forward to supporting a creators co-op if a promising one is ever made.

paxys 2y ago

Whenever someone answers "it's complicated" to what should be a simple question, you know there's a scam involved.

guipsp 2y ago

Why is this person who, as far as I can tell, is not, has never been, or has any intentions of being a creator on nebula complaining that creators are being screwed over? Surely if you were going to publish this piece, you'd get the opinion of at least one nebula creator?

runnr_az 2y ago
Yeah... Doesn't seem fair to imply that it's a big secret if you don't ask.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

paxys 2y ago

TL;DR Nebula is a streaming service. It has a parent company (Standard Broadcast) which owns $83% of the service and has 3 out of 4 board seats. An external public company (Curiosity Stream) owns the remaining 17% and 1 board seat. Standard Broadcast is owned by 6 individuals, some of them popular YouTubers. Content creators who post on Nebula get 50% of the service's total profits (based on watch time). Content creators (other than the 6 mentioned above) don't own any shares in Nebula, but if the service is ever sold, they get 50% of the proceeds from the sale. This doesn't, however, apply to Standard Broadcast or Curiosity Stream, which can and are sold/traded independently. Whether Nebula is "creator-owned" or not, as they proudly proclaim front and center on their website and marketing materials, is left as an exercise for the reader.

ryzvonusef 2y ago

You have two paths for a paid youtube competitor: ____ 1- Bulk Purchase, like Nebula (Sam from Wendover and other fellow youtubers); One subscription buys you access to ALL the channels in the network. Pros: * Single payment for users * gets better as more creators join * usually discounted if you consider per-channel cost Cons: * requires trust between the creators * can cause clash between creators on division of funds * requires a certain minimum output to maintain basic service * one cancelled creator can sink the service ____ 2-Per-channel subscription, like Floatplane (Made by Linus from the LinusTechTips channel); You have to pay seperately for each channel you want to get access to. Pros: * Can be cheaper if you only want access to a couple of specific creators * creators are not dependent on each other to maintain the service * you are seperate from other creator drama somewhat Cons: * Can become costly quickly if you want to subscribe to multiple creators * not that competitive with youtube premium * can cause comparison strife between creators for difference in subscription fee * can't take advantage of the synergist effect. _____ Basically Nebula has the advantage of having many high profile creators, and if you have a smaller following, you can take advantage of the rising tide and get a boost from them by joining the service. Also, Nebula seems to have ~ 50-ish creators from some pretty diverse set of topics, so it's not pigeonholed as Floatplane. Buuuuut...it's unsustainable I feel. As the number of creators increase, the disparity of what each creator brings and what they are owed will be unteneble. -- Floatplane, OTOH, has half the number of channels as Nebula, and they are mostly tech friends of Linus, so it's not only pigeonholed, but overshadowed by the anchor store that is LTT. By having seperate silos, you are unlikely to catch the wake of a rising ship to boost yourself. However, I feel that by cutting money out of the equation (Floatplane gets a fixed cut, rest, you earn of your own merits) it is in theory more sustainable; you have your own silo, and if one is sinking, you are not concerned. Also, there is a gun channel on the website, and they are there because they are tired of the censorship from Youtube. Being free from drama is a plus...don't subcribe if you don't want to watch! but not that free; they are still bound to the whims of payment processors, so if VISA/MASTERCARD/Whatever block them, they are SoL. They are not Only Fans level of free. ___ TBH, it's a pain to get people to pay, the friction is just too high. Nebula makes it easier than Floatplane, on the onset, even if it's not the best choice. But since when have people used logic where money is concerned?

NoGravitas 2y ago

I've long had the feeling that Nebula was kind of sketchy, ever since they kicked out J.T. (Second Thought), a founding member. I'm glad it's working out for Philosophy Tube and Jessie Gender, but I will not be surprised at all if there's not a total rug-pull some time in the future.

xd1936 2y ago

> Nebula the business is “Standard Broadcast LLC,” and is directly owned at the LLC level by me and 43 other creators (and growing). > Nebula the streaming video service (which controls the streaming revenue) is Watch Nebula LLC, which is about 83% owned by Standard Broadcast LLC, with the rest held by Curiosity Stream. All control and all board seats belong to Standard Broadcast LLC. > We use shadow equity for platform creators because assigning LLC-level equity would make signing new creators logistically impractical, and would have complex tax implications for every creator we bring in. US securities laws also are skewed in favor of the wealthy: it would be very expensive or potentially impossible for us to comply with them if we were issuing securities to small creators who aren’t accredited investors. > If substantial control of the streaming service ever changes hands, we are contractually required to split the proceeds 50/50 with the creators on the platform. 50% of streaming profits are distributed to creators based on watch time. Additionally, 1/3 of the revenue from any subscriber is allocated to the creator responsible for bringing in that subscriber. > Weird that he didn’t just ask. — Dave Wiskus, CEO of Nebula https://www.reddit.com/r/Nebula/comments/1ffnaza/comment/lmxu0r9/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Nebula/comments/1ffnaza/comment/lmx...

gamblor956 2y ago
we are contractually required to split the proceeds 50/50 with the creators on the platform. 50% of streaming profits are distributed to creators based on watch time. Additionally, 1/3 of the revenue from any subscriber is allocated to the creator responsible for bringing in that subscriber. For tax purposes, if the LLC is taxed as a partnership, these are all considered partnership interests.
tredre3 2y ago
> Weird that he didn’t just ask. Cameron did quote someone who asked him and the answer he got was "it’s complicated". There is no reason to think that asking again would have resulted in different/better answer. Plus, as we see, it's not that complicated. He explained the situation fully in one paragraph so why didn't he when asked in the past?
socalnate1 2y ago
This is the answer. This comment could have replaced that entire medium article and saved us all a lot of time.