Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did things worsen afterward ?
For the most part it didn't, but to the extent it did, the answer is in the later Mollen Commission Report.
thanks that’s insightful.
I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA
601–610 of 618 posts
Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA
#602Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did things worsen afterward ?
For the most part it didn't, but to the extent it did, the answer is in the later Mollen Commission Report.
i should have said “crime, safety and blight” rather than “things”. I meant the broader experience living in NYC vs the corruption
Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA
#603I think that for example Zuckerberg has built a structure where he is basically irreplaceable. It had to do with A/B shares where, while having a lot less shares, he made sure to have the controlling ones. While this is good while the founder is alive, it sort of begs the question how long will the company that has structure like that run after the founder is gone. I believe it could go to some family foundation that…
I cover this topic extensively in the book. I think the fact that founders are increasingly turning to the political solution of "despotic emperor for life" tells you more about how bad standard governance is than anything else. I think vesting this power in a singular person or small group of people has all the downsides you'd expect from studying history. In the psychology literature, they literally have a name for…
Thanks for reply Eric! I agree, and the problem is in the same way as with countries. Sure, you may have good leader and stability while the founder is alive - but once he goes, everything is ready to go up in flames.
The various gravitational forces within company eventually pull the company apart.
As you said, third way governance is really the key. At the end of the day founders in some cases should become chairman, to ensure that everything is functioning as set by constitution. Going into retirement and enjoying pension/stock options should be more common.
Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA
#604Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it comes to this I think that the main problem is with hiring practices of people opa. If you do not have people with education either in legal/economy psychology you are not getting good People Ops team. You need to have a maximum value team. Also, an HR that has a right education can and will pushback against decisions that do not make sense such as removing employee that has essential know-how knowledge and t…
It’s a major problem, but also a deliberate component HR’s power strategy.
Aye, but fixing this also fixes operational cost and other long-term costs. There is no power without knowledge+experience especially in high level roles.
In the end, HR should extract the most value for the company, trying to combine interest of both employees/company into calculation. Sometime, the interest of an individual manager is not what is in the best interest of the company.
Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would argue it's not a real value if you are not willing to lose something in order to hold on to it. It is admirable to want to do the right thing when you can get away with doing the wrong thing. It is only a true value if you are willing to do the right thing when you cannot get away with doing the right thing. I don't think it's that simple. For example, let's say your desire is to minimize harm in Area X. Wh…
Your logic doesn't hold up well to simple escalation logic. Company A founds itself on doing 0 harm to Area X. Competitor B shows up and starts finding success doing 10 harm to Area X, so Company A makes a "moral" decision: If we do 9 harm to Area X, we are preventing 1 entire harm. Isn't that real value? then Company C shows up and starts finding success doing 100 harm to Area X, so Company A changes it's moral stan…
> then Company C shows up and starts finding success doing 100 harm to Area X, so Company A changes it's moral stance to "unless we do 99 harm to Area X ..."
I mean yes this is technically possible. But I think in many cases, especially "winner-take-all" markets like online search engines, social networks, etc., you don't get this large number of repeated threats. Fending off a competitor or two might be enough. And just as it's possible for there to be some advantage that opens from doing 99 harm to Area X, it's also possible that it never happens.
But also, let's pretend the hypothetical you say _did_ happen?
What should occur? Should the company just NOT do 99 harm to Area X and instead allow 100? If so, why? Unless you break the hypothetical by adding some alternative option C, as much as we don't like the preventative-99 option, it's still better than the allowing-100 option.
Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA
#606The founders and business models of Costco, Patagonia and Novo Nordisk are so radically different from so-called "tech startup" founders^1 that one must consider this in any analysis 1. Who lack a legitimate business model hence have resorted to "data collection from/about computer users, surveillance of computer users even when engaged in non-commercial activity and online advertising services" with generally free,…
The founders don't want to work in the regulated environments that Costco and Novo Nordick operate in The pawns don't want to work in the IT departments of those companies They all want to be in Silicon Valley fantasy land They worship obscene Silicon Valley wealth, they are beholden to venture capital firms and they want to build data centers all over the planet and fill Earth orbit with space garbage The environmen…
*Nordisk
Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA
#607Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious about how the story ends, did they cut the cost of making the hot dog, continue losing money on it, or give up and raise the price?
They manufactured their own hot dog manufacturing plant: > "What we figured out we could do is build our own hot dog-manufacturing plant (in Los Angeles) and make our own Kirkland Signature hot dogs. Now we are doing so much hot dog business that we’ve opened up another plant in Chicago. By having the discipline to say, ‘You are not going to be able to raise your price. You have to figure it out,’ we took it over and…
This is tangential and offtopic but kirkland beef hotdogs are 10/10 for value.
Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA
#608Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there is large gap between what you think LTSE is - and what it actually is. And yes, I know its your baby. Its similar to the kind of gap that exists within the minds of what people want ESG to be - and what it actually is.
do tell
Maybe you read this, maybe you don't.
You got a seat at the RegNMS table, but its serving food you don't actually want to eat. LTSE has been at this for 5+ years and its still at the bottom of the heap in terms of volume. Both MEMX and LTSE started within weeks of each other (Sep 2020), yet MEMX has like 40x(?) the volume. More recently 24X arrived in Nov 2025 and they are already doing more volume than LTSE.
https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/
You're selling a vibe that by trading through LTSE you're buying into "long term investing" or "long-term companies" with like minded investors, but the RegNMS seat is mostly orthogonal to the rest of the business. Note how little your three dually listed companies actually trade on LTSE. From what I can see those three had nearly zero action for 2025 Q4 AND 2026 Q1. Six months of nearly nothing. Why? Because the service that LTSE offers is the same as the other 16 lit venues. It doesn't matter where securities trade.
It's like a bunch of companies trying to sell water from a common fountain and pretending the dixie cup they serve it in really matters. You drink the water and throw away the cup. Slapping a sticker on it that says "Think LongTerm!" is mostly what I see. But I think people who love your messaging think something more is happening. It's why I made the analogy to ESG. It's just a vibe being pawned off on true believers.
At best I could say that the fees LTSE collects is a profit stream that feeds your promotion of better governance structures. But given the anemic flow in the venue, I have to assume its really not that much.
Take note of the revenues from at least the UTP for LTSE. https://www.utpplan.com/DOC/UTP_Revenue_Disclosure_Q12025.pd...
I think all of this comes down to an inherent contradiction in your mission. At best you might describe it as a tension. The RegNMS seat wants volume. You eat what you kill. But the other side of the business is trying to promote long term thinking and good corporate governance structures which has very little to do with trading - in fact - some of the attitudes from that side of the business probably frown on the trading. No short term trading! Only long term! But reality is - trading is trading. You either love it or you don't.
You can see that tension in your leadership team. LTSE is a small company but has two CEOs. I bet one is in NYC and the other in San Francisco. Two different cultures. Two different mindsets. Two teams pulling different ropes that aren't really related. You want them to be related. I get that. But they aren't.
My harping on the LTSE low volume might seem irrelevant but take note of the fact that there is a good chance that the SEC yanks Rule 611. I would expect that to pull your volume down even lower. If the SEC really makes that change, its going to be the hunger games for the little players and you'll go from having a seat at the table to being on the table.
But that might be for the best as you can focus on your real passion - designing better governance structures and encouraging companies to adopt them. The RegNMS seat is kind of a distraction for that.
Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA
#609Hey, Eric! I read Lean Startup many years ago when I was in my "let's do a startup" phase. My idea didn't make it, but I learned a lot and am glad I took the chance. Thanks for the motivation! You said to "Ask You Anything," so here's my question: I have mostly stopped buying from Amazon. That includes books. I'd like to buy your next book. What's the best way to support you if I don't want to purchase through them?…
Luckily, many of us publish in many places other than Amazon, and in fact the best way to support any author is to buy the book from your local independent bookstore. In fact, if you want to do me a big favor, you'll call your local independent bookstore, ask them if they carry the book, and if they don't, berate them for not doing so. But please do it in a polite way. In all seriousness, I actually made a list of bo…
Thanks for doing that!
Re: I'm Eric Ries, author of "The Lean Startup" and new book "Incorruptible" – AMA
#610Generally speaking if a company can game the system they will game the system.
But should they want to game the system? Do you want to game the system? If the answer is no, maybe you have some interest in learning how to build a company that would be able to resist that temptation in the future.
I do not want to game the system, I hate the idea of gaming the system. I just want to be nice, and I think that is precisely the reason why I'm not very rich.