zlacker

I could easily see him, or any other insider, setting themselves up administrating a recipient entity for contributions out of those “capped profits” the parent non-profit is supposed to distribute. (If, of course, the company ever becomes profitable at the scale where the cap kicks in.)

Seems like it would be a great way to eventually maintain control over your own little empire while also obfuscating its structure and dodging some of the scrutiny that SV executives have attracted during the past decade. Originally meant as a magnanimous PR gesture, but will probably end up being taught as a particularly messy example of corporate governance in business schools.

>>batman+(OP)
That would be a form of obfuscated profit-sharing, not equity ownership. Equity is something you can sell to someone else.

>>chatma+M1
Regardless the lack of equity is often cited as some proof he has no incentive to enshittify and the point is that’s probably not true

>>edgyqu+Uh1
Yeah, I agree that the whole legal structure is basically duplicitous, and any attempt to cite it as some evidence of virtue is more emblematic of the opposite...