I won't even go into my opinions on what kind of people Zynga is run by... sheesh. However, in my opinion: The greater question here shouldn't be whether the

I won't even go into my opinions on what kind of people Zynga is run by... sheesh. However, in my opinion: The greater question here shouldn't be whether the metaphorical chef (or literal in Google's case) brought as much value in the in the early days as he or she receive(s|ed) after the IPO. It should be about 2 principles: 1. The company gave a large amount of stock to employees at an early stage, which most definitely propelled the company to success, because the employees had an incentive to help the company succeed (see economics 101) 2. The company gave a large amount of stock to employees at an early stage, which were quite valueless at the time, representing a risk on the side of the employee, assuming the stock was taken as (partial) consideration for employment 3. The company gave a large amount of stock to employees at an early stage, and that's their own fault. It seems the employees without preferred stock will be bamboozled at any rate.