"How much value are you assigning to the risk the founder and investors are taking?"
Absolutely 0, because they're not the ones doing the work.
Absolutely 0, because they're not the ones doing the work.
And what makes showing up at the office and typing on a keyboard such a holy use of time that it alone deserves compensation?
"And what makes showing up at the office and typing on a keyboard such a holy use of time that it alone deserves compensation?"
The fact that it actually makes the damn product.
) In Icelandic, "win" means "work".
When the poor takes an investment risk of $1000 they risk more than some elite putting up $1000.
What is $1,000 worth to you? Now, that question has a wide range of answers. In some places, that's literally worth multiple lives. Or it could be beyond insignificant.
Obviously very few can or should take a personal investment risk of 100% or more of their net worth.
The original comment was that holding money generates nothing, you have to risk it, and I completely agree. You can risk 20% of your net worth and you're not risking your livelihood, and odds are in ~8 years your investment will have doubled, and your net worth increased by 20%. For some people that's a thousand dollars, others it's ten million. If you want to double your net worth in less than 30 years, you're going to have to risk a lot more. Everyone has access to the same returns on the public market (and we restrict access to private markets for very good reasons).
So it's a literal definition of risk, and as a percentage of net worth it works well. The problem of massive wealth inequality to me is completely adjacent to risking capital in return for investment returns.