The alternative is allowing share transfers amongst stackers, but that doesn't generate revenue for the site.
The irony is that everybody will likely put in less money if its uncapped.
I say, let SN find other revenue streams.
I might be missing the reasoning here. One cannot raise more than three million and the other can.
Are you saying that from an individual standpoint there's less incentive to make an investment of any particular size in the uncapped model because ultimately it will amount to a smaller share than it would in the capped model?
I can see that, but why should that be a concern?
26 sats \ 1 reply \ @jeff 7 Mar
Re: correct on lower incentive
If the founder opts into uncapped, they could be diluted by the irrational crowd. With no way to get their asset back.
Imagine you could only buy stocks. And never sell them. And dividends were split amongst an infinite # of future holders. If "the market" thought your territory was the next NVDA, then the founder would get destroyed. instead of rewarded for being early and correct.
Ok, I see your point. Maybe there's a way to weight shares by how long they've been held that would work for everyone.
They could take a rake.