3 ms·

No, I said it would be better for the founder to not be put in a position where he/she can be fired.

• scheme271 12d ago
  If a founder is going to VCs or the markets in general for funding, there's no way to really do this. I don't see how the vast majority of founders can realistically expect others to fund their companies and still let the founder have the final say on all company matters. If founders are willing to self-finance or finance based on cash-flow/collateral, that's a different story. But if you're selling majority stakes of your company's equity to others in order to finance your operations and growth, the equity owners should get a majority vote in how your company runs.
  • ExoticPearTree 12d ago
    > I don't see how the vast majority of founders can realistically expect others to fund their companies and still let the founder have the final say on all company matters. By not selling the controlling majority stake in their company, or retain super-voting rights. Anything to not give anyone the possibility to take their company from them.
    • scheme271 11d ago
      Well, not selling controlling majority stake is fine. What people have issues with are the super-voting rights that where the people owning those rights get to play with other's money with the others not having much say on how that money gets used. E.g. look at meta's VR spending as an example.
      • ExoticPearTree 11d ago
        The unhappy investors can sell their Meta shares and invest in something else if they don't like it, no? Now, since they are just unhappy but don't sell, it means Meta still makes money for them.