Phase 2, of Sam playbook to a take over a company.
See what he did at Reddit below.
He even admits to it in the thread.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...
See what he did at Reddit below.
He even admits to it in the thread.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...
Liquidity for employees is great. Nobody is forcing them to sell.
What makes him great at his job isn't the typical techie path of becoming great at technical and building a great product. His ability is the ability to influence and gain power through good and bad means.
Today's strategy may be good for employees; tomorrow maybe not. And no, he isn't thinking of what's best for employees. They just happen to be aligned at the moment. He is goal oriented regardless of the means. That's just my ill-informed opinion though.
For all of us stuck in the hamster wheel, purpose is easy - because it's forced upon us. But for those who manage to step outside of the wheel, what now? Taken to extremes you even see things like 90+ year old Warren Buffet deciding to step back in the wheel, continuing to show up to grind his days away at the office.
If you appreciate that lots of behaviors of people are them simply looking for a purpose in life - a lot of things start to make much more sense, running the gamut from political extremism, activism extremism, or people who already have practically infinite wealth just turning life into a game of 'make number go up.'
Cyberpunk dystopia, by those who understand what he’s saying.
Liquidity for startup employees is a good thing, not a conspiracy maneuver.
If OpenAI hits a wall and the LLM/GPT trail runs dry, or if regulation somehow stifles the industry, it would be a very smart move to offer liquidity now while the fortunes are there for the taking.
Most US models are so heavily censored, that even Chinese (and supposedly censored) models like Qwen-VL feel like open-minded.
Most companies aren't tradeable, and most employees don't have equity, so its not like owning-where-you-work is a default position.
Most investment advisors caution against having a significant part of your assets in your employer, because you expose yourself to excessive risk. (If the company tanks you lose you job, and savings, at the same time.)
The question to ask is this; imagine you won a million $, would your first instinct be to invest it with your employer? Probably not. You would get an advisor, make a plan, build a balanced portfolio, diversify risk.
So to me, a signal from employees not selling some of their stake (assuming its significant) is that they're poor at financial planning. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't.
I remember one guy I talked to just after 2022 escalation in the Russo Ukrainian war and his point of view was, "this is great, Russia will be defeat in no time and then there will be all the rebuilding economic activity". I don't believe the moron came up with that fantasy by himself, he was told.
A "plan" considers your goals, your age, your income, your responsibilities, and so on.
This makes sense for companies that have like under 50 employees, but far too many founders expect to hire zealots well into the 500+ employee range.
This same shit shows up in interviews too, where candidates are expected to profess just how much they would LOVE to work for that company, or how much they care about the mission. Yadda Yadda.
On the up side startups don't have equity you can trade, so you're unlikely to demonstrate disloyalty this way.
And to be fair, if you go work for a startup you know what you're getting into. (And hopefully you know that the equity they give you has about the same value as a lottery ticket.)
sama plays many games, it’s never about a single company.
why a single company trusts him is a mystery.