3 ms·
Realistically the alternative is that they remain a kind of sham non-profit. I don't like the company, their mission and leadership creep me out - but all thing
by woopsn 2y ago
Realistically the alternative is that they remain a kind of sham non-profit. I don't like the company, their mission and leadership creep me out - but all things considered it would be a good thing for them to lose the 503c designation, no?
Their CEO and board are... extremely unreliable narrators, to put it lightly.
They just raised over $6b at a $157b valuation. The total amount of capital invested to date is astonishing. The fact is that their corporate structure is not really a hindrance - 18 billion should be enough to start "an enduring company", in the sense that it won't disappear next year.
The idea that they need to be a corporation to succeed seems like just another story to sell. It's unlikely they'll get out of this hole.
- az226 2y agoExactly. The bespokeness they mention is opposite. When investor demand is crazy high and you can raise the largest VC rounds in human history, the argument that they can’t raise money unless they change to for profit is laughable at best. At best.