Having just finished the book Hatching Twitter by Nick Bilton, it seems that the board is the crucial thing for founder control. This really surprised me because I had assumed that the board worked for the shareholders and that if you had the majority of the shares, technically you controlled the board via proxy. But there must be some sort of legal maneuver that prevents this (otherwise, a majority shareholder could call a special board meeting and replace the board or expand it in their favor).
It was puzzling to me how Ev Williams basically got kicked out of Twitter by the board (of which he was a member) when he was the largest shareholder. Perhaps his percentage was diluted down during the previous rounds? The book implied the board kicked Williams out against his own volition even though he seemed to hand pick all the board members.
If a case like Twitter (and now Tinder) where the board sets the ultimate agenda is the norm, choosing board members is something that should be given more emphasis and the info in the post seems to be exceedingly helpful.
I believe that Tinder was a fully, or majority, owned subsidiary. It's a different case.
As for Twitter - by the time a company gets that big, it's rare for a founder to have such a large stake. Google and Facebook are the exceptions, though Twitter does deserve to be mentioned with them.
It was puzzling to me how Ev Williams basically got kicked out of Twitter by the board (of which he was a member) when he was the largest shareholder. Perhaps his percentage was diluted down during the previous rounds? The book implied the board kicked Williams out against his own volition even though he seemed to hand pick all the board members.
If a case like Twitter (and now Tinder) where the board sets the ultimate agenda is the norm, choosing board members is something that should be given more emphasis and the info in the post seems to be exceedingly helpful.