Ah okay @dstors thank you for clarifying.
The only disadvantage I can see about becoming a publically held company is that the dedication of @dstors might get tilted too far towards the shareholders and away from your user base - I think that is kind of what happened with the FAANG stocks.
Yes, you're absolutely right. It much depends on the culture of the company and the leadership. dStors will strive to be most responsible to the community.
That's true @dstors there might also be a way to cement your current leadership in the company before going public - I read somewhere about Mark Zuckerberg and the Google founders wanting to do that by creating special shares that were worth 51% of the shareholder votes (I am pretty sure that Google accomplished this).
Some people might not like that idea but if a public company is ran by the day-to-day whim of the shareholders, the company will tend to focus on short-term gains like share buy-backs instead of healthy growth and investments.
Posted using Steeve, an AI-powered Steem interface
Yeah, generally to retain control a company might create stock A and stock B, and one is only held by those holding onto the 51%. There are various setups to this, but that's a common one for sure.
Thanks @crypto-bot and yeah, that is part of what I am talking about. But I remember Mark Zuckerberg calling for a vote that would give him a cemented hold on the company long after he no longer had 51% in his possession.
At least that is what I understand at the time when I was reading the news articles. I think the founders of Google did something similar but may have done it from the get-go.