[TheMagicHorsey]

While I like that investors are now forced to give entrepreneurs a better deal, this sounds like a move too far.

This is like a blank check for entrepreneurs with no strings attached, and no consequence for failure. In fact, the share given to founders in the diversified fund means that financial returns may be had even for a failing business.

That doesn't sound like an entrepreneurial risk/reward type system anymore. That sounds like a guaranteed reward for a bunch of "special" people who are part of some special club.

In fact, it sounds like East Coast investment banking.

[jacquesm]

It's exactly like the stock market, on with larger percentages.

Most people own their stocks totally passive, active shareholders are rare and usually have a big stake in the company.

If everybody who is a shareholder of Google would show up at the shareholder meeting there would be a bit of a space problem.

So passive investors are not rare at all, what is strange about this announcement is that most VCs tout their active role as a plus. This company seems to be taking the opposite tack.

IMO that's wrong, investors can be a useful sounding board and if they automatically agree with every C level decision then you lose a very valuable source of criticism.

[harryh]

The consequences for failing as an entrepreneur have always been and will always be opportunity cost.