So there is a big race to build the next SpaceX. And I can assure you building rockets isn't rocket science. Other companies will follow propped up by their governments.
Is this parody?
> Other companies will follow propped up by their governments.
It's cool to say but it hasn't happened. And rockets literally are, well, rocket science.
Does anyone seriously believe that an independent board of investors can deliver better results than a founder?
If you look at the companies that built the most amount of wealth in the last 20 years, from Meta, Google, Tesla, Alphabet, Nvidia, what many of them share is more or less singular control by the people in charge. Sometimes its super-voting shares but other times its just founder mentality and ability to make big bets and set the direction.
The rest of the article is similarly non-sensical. Everyone will be forced to buy it but it's going to crash! The prior investors will sell their shares! The IPO is an exit mechanism!
One of the disadvantages of relying on the founder is that founders die. If I'm trying to keep a fund going for the next 100 years, investing in a company that relies exclusively on a person who will be dead within 100 years seems problematic.
There are examples I can think of with a more traditional governance structure that did well: Apple, Amazon, Microsoft.
Pretty insane to then claim the article is non sensiscal.
And yes, my pun which you didn't get just says: Building rockets isn't hard.