@joseferreresq · Jose Ferrer Esq.
Saved 2026-05-15 · Posted 2025-10-22 · Status: New
Super-voting shares are the ultimate founder protection plan.
At Meta, Mark Zuckerberg’s shares carry 10 votes each, compared to one for ordinary investors.
That structure means he can control every major decision — even while owning a small fraction of the company.
It’s how founders keep control long after they’ve given up majority ownership
.
Content ideas (0)
No ideas generated yet. Run /instagram-sync ideate from Claude Code to create some.
Comments (15)
Mark learned from what happened to Steve Jobs.
That's not good, if the founder is not doing his best, he should be fired.
These days, it’s nearly impossible to attract investors to a company where the founder has super-voting rights. Fundraising under those terms would be a nightmare.
Zuck owns around 13% of Meta but controls about 61% of its voting power thanks to the dual-class share structure. It’s crazy how fast he learned from that near-miss in 2006 when he says the board almost fired him after turning down Yahoo’s $1B offer. From there, he locked in a governance structure designed to protect his position. But policies like this can backfire. If a founder becomes too rigid or too insulated, it can end up hurting the company in the long run.
There’s also a big question around succession. If those super-voting shares pass down to his children, do they inherit the same power? If so, that could become a real issue later on. Founders have the fire and the hunger because they’re building something from zero. Future generations might not have that same drive, which could impact how the company adapts and survives over time.
So just own over 60% of the company share right?
But how can you be fired from a company you founded!?? 🤔🤔
This is something we do on the operating agreement before going fundraised ?
This is some really good information
He is smarter than the usual 🤓....one step 🪜 ahead 👏👏👏
But if he had 5.01% of the shares he’d have 50.1% worth of votes and the rest of the shareholders would still have 94.9% wouldn’t they…?
so how is 5.01% outvotes the rest 94.99%?
But why would someone fire the founder of a company in the first place
In Nigeria, voting rights is tied to shares owned, meaning if you have 20% of the company after letting investors in, you'll have 20% voting rights too, they're not separate entities, and this might not work.
Even if a founder owns only 20% of the company’s total shares, if those are super shares with 10x the votes, you can control over 50% of voting power to protect you against hostile takeovers and retain control of your company without owning the majority of its stock. I once own only 35% of my company stock with a super voting power.
AI is evolving fast, and that’s exactly why #AIProtection matters. 🚨🤖
Protecting our data, creativity, and human values isn’t optional anymore, it’s essential. Let’s build AI that empowers people, not puts them at risk.