> The problem is that in terms percentage ownership of the company, giving out equity is a zero sum game. You can't give everyone a significant stake (eg. 5%), because that would wipe out the founders/investors.
I agree that it's a problem, but only if the founders think that they are due a much bigger share than anybody else. It's only natural to think so. But, if you're doing the cooperative thing, you have to share. I don't really know anything about it, but that's why I described it as a different kind of company.
>but that's why I described it as a different kind of company.
You mean... like a partnership? It works well for professional services (eg. lawyers, accountants, consultants) because there isn't much capital required and are limits to scalability, so you giving your partners equal share isn't that much of an issue. However, I can't see it working for tech companies where there's a massive amounts of capital required, and the impact of a single contributor can be enormous. Why would investors invest the "different kind of company", the returns will only be shared among the workers? For the founder that has a $1 billion idea and has the skills to execute on it, why would he create an organization where he gets the same share as a junior developer who care barely make a CRUD app?
> For the founder that has a $1 billion idea and has the skills to execute on it, why would he create an organization where he gets the same share as a junior developer who care barely make a CRUD app?
Presumably he wouldn't hire a developer who can barely make a CRUD app, and his decision to share more than he has to would be on ideological grounds.
I agree that it's a problem, but only if the founders think that they are due a much bigger share than anybody else. It's only natural to think so. But, if you're doing the cooperative thing, you have to share. I don't really know anything about it, but that's why I described it as a different kind of company.