zlacker

> Imagine you worked at OpenAI and you just found out that your shares could have been worth a tremendous amount and now their future is, at best, uncertain.

I don't think this is as damning as you think.

I truly believe, especially in this space, there are enough idealists to fill the seats. The reality for a lot of people could quite literally be:

* My shares become massively valuable via some unlikely non-profit to for-profit means. I have generational wealth, but all of my friends and colleagues still need to work. Someone else will create something better and screw the entire world over.

* I work for a non-profit that's creating the most radical, life changing software for all people. Being a non-profit means this company can focus on being the best thing possible for humanity. While I may still have to work, I will be working in a world where everything is happier and more properous.

>>SkyPun+(OP)
I agree, - they are not going to have any issues.

First of all being non-profit gives them a hell of a lot of flexibility in terms of how they work. They don't need to show growth to shareholders, so they aren't just taking in young developers, working then to their bones for a couple of years, then spitting them out.

And even if they are (for example) only paying $300k TC instead of $250k base + $250k stock at Meta, as you say, there are still going to be engineers who believe in the mission and want work more meaningful than just selling ad clicks.

>>SkyPun+(OP)
“ A public benefit corporation cannot distribute profits, gains, or dividends to any person.”

I don’t know a thing about corporate structuring so forgive my ignorance here, but even if they are “non-profit”, can’t they still take very high pay? Can’t they still produce and sell products? They just can’t sell shares or dividend out profits, right?

>>dclowd+ab
Correct. They can even distribute bonuses.