Hacker News Reader

This is exactly what I was thinking.

This is an expensive (?) HR and PR Ad.

In 10 years the popularity of the company should be higher than today, the company will be sold and gutted.

Someone who is going to such lengths to save their employees should at least be given the benefit of doubt.

He did something similar 7 years ago, so I don’t think he has some ulterior motive with all this or a grand plan. IDK, Seems like a great guy to me.

That's the idea, no? Ownership is optionality, you can end up with 0 or with billions. Employment is security, you're "guaranteed" your salary but no more (or fired).

Sounds like he's promising security to his employees, and eating the variance himself - taking a hit in bad times and, conversely, making bank in good times. Sounds fair to me!

November 2015

As majority owner, he is not exactly penniless.

https://www.inc.com/magazine/201511/paul-keegan/does-more-pa...