[ehhthing]

The author doesn't go through this in nearly enough detail to make that argument convincing. Rather than spending the entire time trying to find what the "real" ownership amount, the author should've spent the time contextualizing the situation.

The author basically spends the entirety of one sentence dismissing the idea that there could exist a corporate governance model that allows creators to have a meaningful way to direct the company's decision making process and spends the rest of the time on a wild goose hunt to figure out the "actual" ownership percentages.

It was pretty obvious from the beginning given the repeated mentions of complex ownership models that the "real" numbers were not going to mean that creators owned "real" equity in the company. An investigation about what this actually means would've been a much better way to write this kind of essay.

Instead all we got was a long article with a conclusion that was reasonably obvious in hindsight, and no real evidence to support the thesis that "it's all just smoke and mirrors".

[SpicyLemonZest]

I don’t agree that was obvious in hindsight. I was familiar with Nebula before this article and I had always understood it to be something like a co-op where creators and only creators had genuine equity. When reading the first bit, I assumed as the author did that it must be something where the co-op owns a controlling share in some underlying company.

The conclusion that there’s nothing like a co-op at all is not what I would have expected and I really think does suggest that it’s all smoke and mirrors. If this “ownership” doesn’t consist of anything more than a right for creators to be paid based on their view counts, isn’t it just a YouTube contract with extra steps?