3 ms·
That probably changes things then. I mistakenly assumed that his shares were actually non-voting shares, and that he had no contractual right to vote. If he has
by ryanbrunner 14y ago
That probably changes things then. I mistakenly assumed that his shares were actually non-voting shares, and that he had no contractual right to vote. If he has voting rights but is just abstaining from using them, then that's quite a bit less crazy.
- Samuel_Michon 14y agoYou weren't mistakingly assuming it, it was mentioned in the intro of the article: “He kept the remaining 99.1 percent of himself but promised that his shares would be nonvoting.” There's also no mention of it in the FAQ on kmikeym.com, I'd say it'd be pretty important information to disclose to (potential) investors.
- ubercow13 14y agoThere's a difference between actually non-voting and with voting powers that he has promised investors he will not use.
- Samuel_Michon 14y agoI'd love to see a source for that. I've browsed quite a few of his websites and read several articles about the project, but I've not come across him saying he has voting shares that he promised not to use.