I still don't see your point or what this has to do with founders not being justified in spending their wealth. What is the "startup model"? Corporations and equity have been around for a long time, there's nothing special about silicon valley other than some cultural differences.
How do you know what my personal take is? Was that meant to be an ad hominem slight? I'm stating that "get rich together" isn't some formal or even commonly accepted concept of any business (for anyone not a founder). Equity is a common way to share wealth and motivation but that has nothing to do with the founders being owners and owners gaining wealth through their ownership - but that makes me greedy because you think that owners shouldn't spend their money because someone somewhere (in the same company) doesn't have as much?
You can have exactly what you want by starting a company and giving everyone (including employees and investors) equal shares so why not do that?
There is nothing special about Silicon Valley except for cultural differences and being one of the greatest value-creation centers in human history, one that people around the world keep trying to replicate. And, mostly, failing.
You're also basically wrong about the history of business. Your theory of "I get to take it all" is relatively new in the scheme of things, an artifact of high financial liquidity, rising inequality, and a shift in political power from labor to capital.
Again, feel free to do something different than the Silicon Valley model. But please stop pretending like it's just a weird coincidence that it has been enormously successful and is different than how business is done elsewhere.
Your comments are continually tangential, don't answer the questions posed, and are now contradictory.
What I'm actually saying is that SV is NOT different than anywhere else. Corporations and ownership are universally practiced, and China for example is just as big. Business wealth (outside of wages) is proportional to ownership, founders are the biggest owners so they gain the most wealth from an exit. They've earned their money and can spend it freely. This is the fundamental way corporations work.
However giving away equity more often actually is a relatively new thing. I have no issue with this but am merely asking you what this has to do with a majority owner not being able to spend proceeds because there exists a minority owner? I'm asking you to backup the statements you made regarding the "startup/SV/get rich together" model which seems to be your theory - I see 0 examples of this pact outside of the founders circle. If you feel that everyone in a company should share equal ownership then that's certainly not the case in SV, which you seem to be praising.
> What I'm actually saying is that SV is NOT different than anywhere else.
And I'm saying you're wrong. SV is different in the extent to which people pursue joint success rewarded by equity. (Go look at the AngelList job listings versus job listings anywhere else if you don't believe me.) It is also different in the extent of its economic success. This is not coincidental, and neither is the SV bias against ostentatious displays of wealth.
> what this has to do with a majority owner not being able to spend proceeds because there exists a minority owner
Because in the cases mentioned a founder (who is often not the majority owner by the time you get to later rounds) is cashing out ahead of everybody else. It's not like the employees and investors are getting buckets of cash. Just high-living founders.
Especially when the company is not even profitable, this sends a terrible signal. If someone has built a profitable company and rewarded investors and employees proportionally to how they've helped the founder, that's one thing. But when the founder is just pocketing cash that could be instead used to help the company succeed, that's different. It makes it very clear that the founder is looking out for himself first.
How do you know what my personal take is? Was that meant to be an ad hominem slight? I'm stating that "get rich together" isn't some formal or even commonly accepted concept of any business (for anyone not a founder). Equity is a common way to share wealth and motivation but that has nothing to do with the founders being owners and owners gaining wealth through their ownership - but that makes me greedy because you think that owners shouldn't spend their money because someone somewhere (in the same company) doesn't have as much?
You can have exactly what you want by starting a company and giving everyone (including employees and investors) equal shares so why not do that?