[jasode]

>If I were Uber’s new CEO, I would embrace this reality. I would do a round that recaps the company immediately. Issue new stock to employees. Start at a clean and reasonable slate. Reset expectations and redefine what a successful IPO would be. Take the hit now, rather than having it continue to hang over this company until the end of time.

The new CEO presumably won't be a co-founder with significant voting power like Garrett Camp. He/she will more likely be a "hired gun." Therefore, the next chief won't have the power to issue new stock and force every investor to suffer an early haircut. Even if the board of directors (Kalinick, Camp, TPG, Huffington, etc) agree to award some equity (1%?) as incentive to attract a new CEO, he/she still won't control enough of the company to make those decisions.

If we argue that a good CEO would convince those investors/BofD to take the financial hit, then we're still back to the decision the next CEO doesn't control: why would the BofD hire a CEO that tells them to immediately reduce their financial stake instead of concentrating on cleaning up Uber and growing the value so they never had to consider haircuts in the first place?