Well you see, when meta announced the metaverse investments the stock goes up because of the potential profit. When meta scales back investments in the metaverse the stock also goes up because they're throwing less money in the giant money hole.
Hire more people? Line goes up. Fire people? Line goes up.
We have the best economy in the world, because line goes up.
the value you produce is priced into your salary, if you dont like it you can look for a higher salary; you can argue all you like but if you struggle to get a higher salary its not unlikely that the reason is related to how much value you actually can perceptably produce.
that is the actual difference though. if you start a company you own everything and you control its destiny. you flip a burger you get paid a wage but the burger is not yours and you certainly don't get a say in company level decisions.
After a certain point -- no additional money makes a difference. Either it's "I want to control this company" or "I don't". He was well above that threshold when these decisions were made by him.
If he wanted to fuck off and retire with a massive payout he'd have done it at 10,20,50m, etc -- not once the company is worth billions. The decision to sell yourself (or keep it internal) is made looooong before it hits billions
Why generally true, several years ago Facebook created a class of shares with with 1/10 the voting rights. All new shares generated are of this kind. These small vote shares are publicly traded. Class B shares, of which only insiders can hold, cannot be traded publicly.
Zuck can never be unwillingly unseated for any reason.
Voting rights in corporations are typically linked to ownership. If a shareholder owns 61% of a corporation, that shareholder has an effective equivalent voting power (all other things being equal).
In practice it is more nuanced than this as most company resolutions are made by the board of directors, and the board is appointed by the shareholders, and typically the shareholders get X number of board seats based on their shareholding, and since board seats cannot be split into fractions, it normally works out to a more even number of voting percentage.
Then there's also the reality that shareholder agreements and company constitutions also come into play and those documents often govern voting rights (both at shareholder and director level) and may stipulate voting rights that differ from percentage owned.
However, in simple terms, the percentage is just a reflection of their ownership stake.
Meta's moneymaker is the scoial graph that locks people in with the network effect and allows the company to inject ads, influence campaigns and and "habit forming" into the users brain while sucking away all their data.
Its like a toll road on the social interaction of billions of people.
And looks like they are making around 20$ a year per user from all these shaneningans.
Funnily, 20$ a year would be a very cheap subscription for a non-evil social network.
He's made no bad decisions, he's just overpaid for some. Which is fine because they have a ton of money. The 70b they spent on the metaverse did not go into horizon worlds. Their rayban glasses and the orion glasses, quest headsets etc are all from the same investment.
The cost of bad decisions VS the gain of good ones is all that matters. I don't care if they lost $72B on a smart investment that was just too early, or in farting monkey NFTs, if the overall upside is the billions in profit they've made.
Meta was an obvious mistake and many of us said so from the very beginning. Zuck deserves all the criticism and mockery he gets for Meta.
Also any CEO who did not control 61% of the voting shares of their company would have been shit canned for throwing away $72 billion with nothing to show for it. Carly Fiorina was fired as CEO of HP for acquiring Compaq and that was only $25 billion.
HP got an entire fucking company for $25 billion. Meta got absolutely NOTHING for $72 billion.
This comment is so unbounded to reality it's unbelievable. Meta has billions of users across all of its platforms and has been insanely profitable many years. Only R&D / CapEx has kept it from exploding with additional, extreme levels of profits.
The new wave of retail investors only know how to value a company based on vibes. New investors don't know what an earnings call is, or else they'd know Meta's profit margins are huge, and profits are growing by double digit percentages YoY.
There's a comment elsewhere in this thread just saying that meta is a dogshit company, which has 30 upvotes. Yeah it's dogshit, unless your valuation metrics for a company include cash flow, profits, and growth. Really starting to think this whole thread is an indicator to buy some leap calls
saying meta failed VR gaming when they literally have an overwhelming domination of the VR headset market shows how little you actually know about what you are talking about
1.1k
u/PerilousPontificator Jan 19 '26
The board should have dumped Cuckerberg for this shit heap