zlacker

>>nickru+(OP)
This all seems so weird, and the list of Board members doesn't make this any easier to understand. Apart from the 3 insiders, there are 3 other board members. 2 of them seem complete no names and might not qualify for any important corporate board. In a for profit shareholders in theory control the board, in a non profit I am not even sure of who really has control over things.

>>crop_r+k2
The board does and they are not supposed to have a financial stake in the non-profit. Usually they just vote their friends on. Welcome to the loony tunes that is nonprofit management.

Clearly Microsoft staked its whole product roadmap on 4 random people with no financial skin in the game.

>>dougmw+e3
> Usually they just vote their friends on

You actually think that for-profit corporate boards are significantly different, especially in the startup/early IPO phase?

>>PaulDa+D4
Sure, the investors own the company and the board answers to them. Nonprofits are significantly disconnected from their own financial incentives. I have witnessed it at every nonprofit I have worked for.

>>dougmw+j5
In the early stage the investor does not own the startup. 20-30% stake would be typical. Hence why a Series A investor usually demands a board seat and special considerations.

>>adastr+B7
Investor here is not someone who puts cash in professionally without running the company. Investor here means whoever owns the stock. There is always an investor in a company even if its just the founder owning 100% stock.

The board reports to the shareholders and the management reports to the board.

In early stage companies it is possible and likely that all three are the same person, that doesn't change the different fiduciary responsibilities for each role they play.

>>manque+Xt1
The word you are looking for is "shareholder."