Founder Control: Why They Should Lead Public Companies #shorts

这是一个“大胆观点”，主张所有创始人运营的上市公司都应该赋予其创始人**不成比例的投票控制权**。 该发言人的核心论据在于将“平庸者”（他将听众和自己都归入此列）与创始人进行区分。他认为大多数人过着“平庸的生活”，做出“平庸的决定”，并产生“平庸的结果”。相反，那些能建立起足以上市的公司的个人，在“99%的情况下”，都是拥有“超凡能力”的人，他们拥有“做不平庸之事”、“做不平庸的决定”以及“产生不平庸的结果”的成功记录。 他认为，允许一群“平庸者”去“完全扼杀”一个拥有如此明显超凡能力的人的决策和执行，是“非常奇怪”且不理性的。尽管他承认“平庸者”可以“有一点点发言权”——这被比作不要“完全拔掉他们的控制器”，让他们仍然感觉有所参与——但主要信息是“让创始人这位领导者尽情发挥”，并“不要挡他们的路”。 他回应了一个投资者可能提出的反驳观点：如果他们不喜欢创始人的决策，他们“根本没必要持有这家公司的股份”。此外，他还预先驳斥了关于指数基金的论点，指出如果一家公司被纳入指数，那通常是因为它们是“该行业中更好、更大或最有价值的公司之一”，因此是“实至名归”。 他重申，归根结底，如果创始人仍在领导公司，“常态就应该是他们拥有不成比例的投票控制权”。他以强烈的比喻性语言总结道：“让他们掌勺。如果你不喜欢，就他妈的滚出厨房，”并补充说，“如果你连炒鸡蛋都不会煎，老兄，你当初为什么要待在厨房里呢？”

This is a "hot take" advocating that all publicly traded, founder-run companies should allocate a *disproportionate amount of voter control* to their founder. The speaker's core justification is a distinction between "midwits" (which he includes the listener and himself in) and founders. He posits that most people lead "midwit lives," make "midwit decisions," and produce "midwit results." In contrast, individuals who build companies significant enough to become publicly traded are, "99% of the time," people with "extraordinary ability" who have a proven track record of "doing non-midwit things," making "non-mid decisions," and producing "non-mid results." He finds it "very strange" and irrational to allow a group of "midwits" to "completely stifle the decision making and the execution" of someone with such demonstrable extraordinary abilities. While acknowledging that "mids" can "have a little bit of a say" – likened to not "completely unplugging their controller" so they still feel involved – the primary message is to "let the founder the leader cook" and "get out of their way." He addresses a potential counter-argument for investors: if they dislike the founder's decision-making, they simply "don't have to own the company." Furthermore, he preemptively refutes the argument about index funds, stating that if a company is included in an index, it's generally because they are "one of the better and/or larger and/or most valuable companies in said industry," thus having "earned their place." The bottom line, he reiterates, is that if a founder is still leading a company, "the norm should be that they have outsized voting control." He concludes with strong metaphorical language: "Let them cook. If you don't like it, get the [expletive] out of the kitchen," adding, "if you can't even make scrambled eggs bro, why are you even in a kitchen in the first place?"