Would you like to share your thought process, proof or sources? Or is simply disagreeing sufficiently satisfying for you? Elsewhere in this thread, you seem to be making the same point that you're now disagreeing with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5455642
Here's another quote that makes me think he seriously only gave himself nonvoting shares:
“shareholders don't dictate what's tabled. We can only vote on what's proposed, the implication being that K5M is fine with either outcome.”
I haven't read any legal contracts, but I'm under the impression that as a human being, he can decide to opt out of any of their decisions, with the only outcome being his stock price dropping.
Sure, for the law this is probably just a role playing game. What I was talking about is that within the constraints of the game, he has no vote. Other commenters seem convinced that he has voting shares but promised not to use them. I haven't seen any proof for that yet.
I do think that as this experiment goes on and the Kmikeym stock price goes up, the stakes increase and it becomes harder to back out. Imagine: an organized crime syndicate could buy $1 million in Kmikeym stock to launder money – if he does anything that adversely influences Kmikeym share price, he might be in for a world of hurt. Or another scenario: his parents might be so convinced in their son's success that they mortgage their house to pay for shares in Kmikeym. If he screws up, his parents lose their home.
In the context of the game, you're right, he has no vote. But this isn't Pathfinder, there are very real out-of-game-context consequences to this game. This is more akin to a long-term slave BSDM relationship.
