[x0x0]

I'm not sure why you attribute that as a shield against the market. That seemed much more like an open employee revolt. And I can't think of a governance structure that is going to stop 90% of your employees from saying, for example, we work for Sam Altman, not you idiots...

[mousetree]

An employee revolt due to the market. The employees wanted to cash out in the secondary offering that Sam was setting up before the mess. It was in (market) interest to get him back and get the deal on track.

[x0x0]

Employees care about their pay is so reductive as to be meaningless. Any action any employee takes can be labelled as such.

[dmix]

Broad speculation

[iojrgao]

Yes, they wanted to work for Sam... because he was arranging a deal to give them liquidity and make them rich.

The board was not going to make them rich.