The current situation with companies is that early adopters have more power and money.
After exit, the early founders may start a new venture with much bigger capital to make more profit. As a result, with this schema, the rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer.
The people who come after the project launch won’t have enough motivation to improve it, as they don’t have as much stake as the early adopters or inventors. This results in companies stagnating and avoiding inventions after founders leave.
For example, consider if Ara was created as a traditional organization. As a founder, I exit the company in 5 years while still being the largest stakeholder. The next guy who leads the project is Ray Kroc, who turns the project into a billion-user killer dapp, making it worth billions of dollars. Due to my shareholders, I get more from his work simply because of the ineffective system.
Despite being open-source, Ara is intended to be a profit-based motive, but it is online, so I give an example of the company analogy.
Contrary. Ara development organization isn’t built by the companies as it’s ineffective. But it’s also not a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) where all people have a vote. Ara is the improved version of open-source project management that has been effective for decades. The advantage of Ara compared to other open source projects is that it adds investors as the third stakeholders in the project along with contributors and maintainers.
Yes, this scheme will always attract people to the company instead of creating competitors simply because they want to get money for success.