[taurath]

That all but guarantees a lower stock price over time for the company, as newer shares are literally less valuable than older shares. If you have “high priority” voting shares worth $100, they could be worth $90 or less to the investor that is buying them because they decrease in value on every trade.

[JumpCrisscross]

> That all but guarantees a lower stock price over time for the company, as newer shares are literally less valuable than older shares

Which is why you see private companies experimenting with all manner of super-voting classes of stock (usually for founders) but never with this idea. New money would be reticent to invest.

Devil's advocate: investors didn't seem to care about Snaps' zero-vote stock.

[eries]

We believe our proposal is way more investor favorable than zero-vote shares. But it’s also way more company-favorable than standard governance