I'm question the value of "Equity-driven." Equity - possibly counterproductively - bundles the distribution of 3 very different things: profit, sale, and decisi

I'm question the value of "Equity-driven." Equity - possibly counterproductively - bundles the distribution of 3 very different things: profit, sale, and decisions. Trying for both profit and sale creates conflict unless all workers and investors share views and desires. For example, an investor roadshow typically hurts profits for sale proceeds. Or more complicated, imagine one investor is a fund that's forced to liquidate due to losses as the market goes into a panic. Selling is likely to hurt everyone else. Of course, increasing sale value sometimes requires working for some profits, but there's no guarantee that's the best route for profits. At best, you usually end up compromised. Decision rights (typically voting) are even more complicated. Many think it shouldn't have the same weights and rights as the other parts, so they try to rectify it with share classes and complicated operating agreements. That's crude, expensive, and each "fix" becomes exponentially harder. Tying voting to the other two only seems logical as a way to support sale value. I'm all for massive (up to total) profit-sharing, but I'm less sure about the others, especially as entangled by equity. Venture/angel-backed start-ups logically will end up either in utter failure or conflict. It seems like it'd only make sense for someone long-term if they turn into a more typical public corporation big-shot post-sale.