[tgma]

I don't interpret that paragraph as non-dilutive. It's to say that the parent is just a regular shareholder currently holding the majority and then weasels away with "more resources as valuation growth" which is true in absolute mark-to-market sense, not relative ownership, but I don't think they have free cash to pony up and exercise any first right of refusal even if they have something like that on a pro-forma basis, so unless the non-profit board is adamant on voting against all capital raises and stock-based acquisitions and employee stock (they won't), their ownership share will be diluted.

[DrBurrito]

Yes, that is the new one.

From what I understand reading Mat Levine explanation of the topic, the non-profit controls the board and has supervoting rights, so it cannot be diluted to be outed.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-05-06/ope...

[tgma]

Gosh, that was a very hard article to decipher for me, initially consisting of the author's own view on what should've been, old conversion plans that did not happen, and in the end alluding to what actually happened, except he also has no additional facts to offer, and it is his own speculation that the non-profit holds supervoting shares. I would totally not base an analysis on the author's mere educated guesses.

[DrBurrito]

The gist is that the nonprofit still controls the board. The details of course are surely full of technicalities I cannot find anywhere. At least to me, the walkthrough was useful to see what changed.

[tgma]

"Still" == as of the conversion date. We don't know as of today since have been additional capital raises and acquisitions.