Meet the Man Who Sold His Fate to Investors at $1 a Share | Hacker News Reader

Meet the Man Who Sold His Fate to Investors at $1 a Share

wired.com

31 pointscwan16 comments

Previous discussion, ~187 comments back when this was published in March:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5454147

This is so perfect, a parable for our age. A man with balls but no guts, deferring to the sort of terrible decisions made in boardrooms everywhere. Even when he knows what he wants, he wants the decision to come from someone else.

I recently moved to USA and just noticed the extend of fame of the Kardashians. So I did a little research and it turns down that they don't have any special skills or talents. They are just "famous for being famous".

Imagine that a TV producer reads the article and decides to make a show about Mike Merrill where people get to vote what he does with his life. I can imagine a situation where the value of KMikeyM will soar. Once you become famous your value is not given by your own productivity. It is a strange world, but some people have been able to convert fame into money.

He created 100,000 shares. 3,711 of those shares are in other peoples' hands. Sounds like he still controls about 96% of himself. So why does he care about their votes?

Anyway: This whole thing seems wildly narcissistic. Who gives a shit if he moves in with his girlfriend or gets a vasectomy? These are issues to be decided between KMikeyM and his friends/family, not someone who gave him a few bucks for some fake "shares." Especially if he doesn't know that someone personally.

He cares because his 96% interest is non-voting.

I'd be interested in knowing how this works in a legal framework, and if his shareholders have any legitimate legal recourse if he decides to ignore them.

Ach. I missed that bit.

I'll stand by the rest of my comment, though...

I stand by the rest of your comment as well. I personally believe it's a stupidly short-sighted endeavor that at some point he will want out of, but to each his own.

My comment on the legality of it stemmed from curiosity on what would be necessary to "take himself private" at some point.

It sounds like you didn't even skim the article... Here's a portion of the opening introduction:

> Over the next 10 days, 12 of his friends and acquaintances bought 929 shares, and Merrill ended up with a handful of extra cash. He kept the remaining 99.1 percent of himself but promised that his shares would be nonvoting: He’d let his new stockholders decide what he should do with his life.

He cares because he's a non-voting shareholder and the shareholders care because they are his friends and family.

>He cares because he's a non-voting shareholder and the shareholders care because they are his friends and family.

His original shareholders were friends and family, however after it/he took off online and an exchange was built, a large portion of his voting shares are now owned by internet strangers.

It brings up all sorts of moral, financial and ethical questions. It is also provides insights on what happens with public traded companies and start-ups where people not invested emotionally get to make the decisions. Read the article it is pretty entertaining.

There's plenty of discussion here (and the original thread back in March) about the social/moral/ethical issues behind this. What about the legal side? Is there any way he's doing this legally - in such a way that the SEC, FTC, or similar gov't entities wouldn't shit all over it if they decided to pay attention? Even if he created a corporation with real stock, is it possible that he's actually legally bound to it?

In other words, does the continued value of the stock hinge on your faith in his word, and your faith that the government won't someday intervene?

It's perfectly legal, since he isn't legally obligated to do what his shareholders vote. Moreover, the fact that his shareholders voted for him to do something (or not do something) would not be defensible in any legal proceding. (An individual is distinct from a corporation; a contract that only binds the corporation does not also bind him.)

Also, while the dude promised to keep his shares non-voting, he didn't make a legally-enforceable promise, so he can simply vote his 96% anytime he feels like it.

So if what you're saying is true, and assuming that you're legally buying stock in an actual corporation, the value only hinges on your faith that he'll keep his word.

This is the first time I want to downvote a story! This guy is crazy and I know that he wants to play the "Trueman Show" to get money through shares, while he literally puts money above human value. So egoistic... I'm speechless and shocked Mike!

One of the most fascinating articles I've read in a long time.

Didn't David Bowie do this 20 or 30 years ago?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com