No: WeWork is a huge part of the "problem", with crazy org structure, self-dealing, a "cult of CEO" structure, and a business model that may not be that defensible. Softbank is an enabler.
Let's hope this his "peak hubris" and we're back to more sensible tech IPO attempts.
Not sure that it's a problem now though. Like Matt Levine suggested[0], WeWork did a lot of weird shit when they were private, but now they want public money, they need to behave more like a responsible company. It's kind of what's supposed to happen because of the disclosure, it's just that most of the time companies take care of governance issues before the S-1.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-13/we-is-...
Neumann's past behavior is still a problem.
In WeWork's case it's probably impossible to remove him both legally and because the whole company is built around his personality cult.
A company is something "we" build, it isn't something "one" builds, and this misunderstanding is causing a lot of social pains in the US right now.
It is deeply ironic that the company that elucidates this exact philosophy in its IPO is such a good example of a company built by “one.”
>Softbank is an enabler.
Enabler is true, but a lever requires both the rod and the fulcrum the rod pivots on. Without the enabler the lever would not exist.
Sounds just about par for the course of any SV startup, the only difference is, the critique seems consistent with outsiders criticizing SV startup IPOs, only the shoe is on the other foot and SV is criticizing outsiders for the very concepts it seems to promote within its own little bubble.