It /is/ misleading to say or imply that it is a co-op, though. It isn’t. It may be a progressive company which provides very favourable terms to creators, but it isn’t a co-op.
Yeah, I see your point—it might be misleading to label Nebula as a co-op since it technically isn't one. But I think what's important is how much Nebula does to empower creators compared to other platforms. The founders are creators who've invested a lot to make it a place where content makers get more support and a bigger share of the revenue. Even if it's not a co-op, it still feels like a step in the right direction for giving creators more control and benefits than they'd get elsewhere.
Fully agree that it’s a step in the right direction. The thing that gives me pause is essentially ‘if they want to be a co-op, why aren’t they just a co-op’?
I appreciate that in a full co-op dilution is a concern if they need external investors (e.g., Curiosity Stream) but you could have a structure with 50% co-op ownership and 50% capital ownership, so dilution as the platform expands would only affect the other co-operative owners.
After reading the article, I walked away with "well, they were vague about the terms, but the real terms sound fine to me."
But your comment changed my mind somewhat: it definitely isn't a co-op, and the "creator owned" language is misleading.