[Dylan16807]

> Why have 1 class A and 9 class B, instead of 100 shares for the company owner and 9 on the market?

Because you want to sell more of the company without losing control. Changing that would be a lot more complicated than tidying up.

But consider a scenario where all shares have the same voting power, and class B shares have 100x the dividends and own 100x as many assets. With 100 class A and 9 class B.

In this scenario, the class A shares are much worse than class B shares. But the end result is the same: the founder can own 10% of the company value while having 90% of the votes.

Surely the founder isn't getting scammed here, despite their shares being so much weaker, right? And it would be strange to say the people with the superior class B shares are being scammed. But this is basically equivalent to having good class A and bad class B. So now what?