[eries]

I write about both companies (briefly) in the book. I've noticed in the comments I get from readers that people still feel very tenderly towards Google, remembering that incredible sense of idealism they instilled in so many of us when they went public. So I had to be very careful what I wrote about Google; I actually mostly left the critique to ex-Google employees, by quoting a dataset of people who had been at Google 10+ years and then wrote about their experience after leaving. Put together, those essay are heartbreaking.

By contrast, I can say pretty much anything about Facebook and nobody seems to care. Yet, if you go back and read their S-1, you can see how they very much wanted to be seen as the mission-driven good guys.

It's all quite sad, really. There are plenty more stories of corruption in the book. To be honest, it was a challenge to avoid having the whole thing read as bleak given how pervasive this corruption is today. I did my best to balance it out. You'll have to let me know if you think I got it right.

[aamar]

> So I had to be very careful what I wrote about Google

Can you say more about this? Do you think those tender feelings towards Google track some strain of values which Google still carries? Or does this statement reflect some fear of retaliation or conflict that would drown out the rest of your message?

Genuinely interested in how you think about this, especially in the context of this new book’s topic. Thank you for this AMA.

[munificent]

> Do you think those tender feelings towards Google track some strain of values which Google still carries?

I suspect that it's largely just that brand reputation tends to be very sticky in the minds of people.

It's the same reason that Pyrex, Harley-Davidson, and Dyson are still high reputation brands even though the product they make today is tragically worse than what gave them their initial reputation.

(I tend to think of private equity as often existing as an arbitrage system to take advantage of the fact that they can buy a loved brand, slash the quality and increase the profit, and continue to sell at its original price based on that brand stickiness for a while until people eventually wise up.)

[aamar]

I agree with your take on reputation as a lagging indicator, and your take on PE. But a writer could also feel (if the reputation is truly out of date with the reality) that they ought to point out the disconnect, rather than triangulate between the two.

[creamyhorror]

> that incredible sense of idealism

The idealism that has been sucked out of the tech industry. It was so (naively) hopeful at one point, and now the arms race and profit-maximization has eroded it all. Your observations really resonate with me.

I'm surprised I hadn't heard of the Long-Term Stock Exchange, it seems like a much healthier direction for the market.

[eries]

You might want to ask yourself why, in all these years, you haven't heard of it. There's quite a few people invested in keeping it that way.

[eej71]

I think there is large gap between what you think LTSE is - and what it actually is. And yes, I know its your baby.

Its similar to the kind of gap that exists within the minds of what people want ESG to be - and what it actually is.

[eries]

do tell

[eej71]

Maybe you read this, maybe you don't.

You got a seat at the RegNMS table, but its serving food you don't actually want to eat. LTSE has been at this for 5+ years and its still at the bottom of the heap in terms of volume. Both MEMX and LTSE started within weeks of each other (Sep 2020), yet MEMX has like 40x(?) the volume. More recently 24X arrived in Nov 2025 and they are already doing more volume than LTSE.

https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/

You're selling a vibe that by trading through LTSE you're buying into "long term investing" or "long-term companies" with like minded investors, but the RegNMS seat is mostly orthogonal to the rest of the business. Note how little your three dually listed companies actually trade on LTSE. From what I can see those three had nearly zero action for 2025 Q4 AND 2026 Q1. Six months of nearly nothing. Why? Because the service that LTSE offers is the same as the other 16 lit venues. It doesn't matter where securities trade.

It's like a bunch of companies trying to sell water from a common fountain and pretending the dixie cup they serve it in really matters. You drink the water and throw away the cup. Slapping a sticker on it that says "Think LongTerm!" is mostly what I see. But I think people who love your messaging think something more is happening. It's why I made the analogy to ESG. It's just a vibe being pawned off on true believers.

At best I could say that the fees LTSE collects is a profit stream that feeds your promotion of better governance structures. But given the anemic flow in the venue, I have to assume its really not that much.

Take note of the revenues from at least the UTP for LTSE. https://www.utpplan.com/DOC/UTP_Revenue_Disclosure_Q12025.pd...

I think all of this comes down to an inherent contradiction in your mission. At best you might describe it as a tension. The RegNMS seat wants volume. You eat what you kill. But the other side of the business is trying to promote long term thinking and good corporate governance structures which has very little to do with trading - in fact - some of the attitudes from that side of the business probably frown on the trading. No short term trading! Only long term! But reality is - trading is trading. You either love it or you don't.

You can see that tension in your leadership team. LTSE is a small company but has two CEOs. I bet one is in NYC and the other in San Francisco. Two different cultures. Two different mindsets. Two teams pulling different ropes that aren't really related. You want them to be related. I get that. But they aren't.

My harping on the LTSE low volume might seem irrelevant but take note of the fact that there is a good chance that the SEC yanks Rule 611. I would expect that to pull your volume down even lower. If the SEC really makes that change, its going to be the hunger games for the little players and you'll go from having a seat at the table to being on the table.

But that might be for the best as you can focus on your real passion - designing better governance structures and encouraging companies to adopt them. The RegNMS seat is kind of a distraction for that.

[petrev01]

Would love to hear your take here, @eries!

[creamyhorror]

Touche. Honestly, if there's going to be speculative fever in society that you can't suppress, it should be captured for better purposes, such as through your LTSE. Bring access to it to Asia sometime.

[Barbing]

> I write about … [Meta] in the book.

This mean you are now under gag order as you rise on the bestseller list? :)

Lean Startup is awesome, can’t wait to read your new. Excited to read about the ostensibly-not-evil Costcos of the world and hope the smartest & wealthiest amongst us grok it, that we win more when others win.

[eries]

Thank you. I really appreciate your kind words, and I consider myself deeply fortunate that I've been able to speak my mind freely on these topics, at least so far.

[m_a_g]

I think you’re spot on. Facebook employees have accepted its fate. It has become a company of mercenaries. I’m surprised they folded more quickly than Google.