Beetje jammer dat je niet wilt reageren of mij bewust negeert zoals ik eerder bij je heb
ervaren. Een bericht typen is makkelijk, maar probeer dat allerminst te onderbouwen. Om jouw claim wat betreft het simpelweg verkopen van Proton te weerleggen/nuanceren:
https://proton.me/blog/proton-non-profit-foundation
https://www.reddit.com/r/...ning_towards_a_nonprofit/
Uit Proton bericht:
However, adopting a Swiss non-profit structure provides additional security, which a corporation cannot achieve. Because Proton has no venture capital investors, we can take this additional step to secure the future. Swiss foundations do not have shareholders, so Proton will no longer be dependent upon the goodwill of any particular person or group of persons. Instead, Swiss foundations and their board of trustees are legally obligated to act in accordance with the purpose for which they were established, which, in this case, is to defend Proton’s original mission. As the largest voting shareholder of Proton, no change of control can occur without the consent of the foundation, allowing it to block hostile takeovers of Proton, thereby ensuring permanent adherence to the mission.
As with much of what we do, this approach is unique, but we believe this hybrid model offers the best of both worlds. For instance, the for-profit corporation is not prevented from issuing stock options to attract and incentivize the best talent in tech. Nor would it even prevent the corporation from raising capital on public markets if additional resources are required to win the fight for the future of the internet. However, the foundation’s control would always require the company to act in a way that does not jeopardize Proton’s original mission, and Proton’s financial success is directly committed to the public good. In this way, we seek to preserve not only Proton’s values, but also our culture of innovation, entrepreneurship, and ambition, and our relentless competitive spirit.
Gebruiker Reddit:
lots of liberal interpretations in responses here.
Proton is a company that issues shares of the business to shareholders (not publicly on a stock market though). What they have done is granted many shares to the newly formed Proton non-profit which gives the non-profit control of the Proton AG (the for profit company where we get proton services from).
So in effect, a non-profit now has primary stake in a for-profit company. The theory being that the non-profit will put its interest (defined by Proton owner in the blog) above profit.
What's not clear is whether the non-profit has over 50% of the business, which is actually required to implement all the things they claim. Proton used the term primary shareholder which just means the single largest shareholder, whereas majority shareholder would mean they own 50%+ of the company and therefore can do "anything" without being overruled.
So while this is a good step, there is still business risks of things not going the way they want over the long run (though greatly greatly reduced) solely based on the language they chose to use and how terms are legally defined (at least in the US).
Edit: the net result though is proton customers should feel more assured that the mission that Proton stands for will continue and attempts to remove many of the profit motivators that drive other companies. Personally I think this goes a long way, but it isn't some magical bullet as some seem to think in this thread.
Met andere woorden: "Proton kan ook zomaar verkocht worden aan een Amerikaanse investeerder." is simpelweg onjuist en geeft een verkeerde indruk.