21–30 of 108 posts
Essentially, all the money collected by subscriptions is paid to creators based on the number of views on their videos.
[0] https://nebula.tv/videos/tldrbusiness-how-does-tldr-really-m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That might very well be the case. It would probably be more honest to give the content creators stocks or say “partly ran by content creators” instead of “owned by content creators” in this case, no?
The problem with that is that if you truly own something, you have the right to sell that thing, and nobody can say who you can sell it to . Give it six months and it wouldn’t be “creator-owned” any more, due to cash-strapped creators dumping stock for a payday. A co-op is structurally as much about ensuring that employees can’t transfer their equity to non-employees as it is about ensuring that employees have equity…
Ownership is a nuanced concept, and taking a hard line on just one feature of ownership is not necessarily the right choice in general discussion.
Interesting analysis! From the facts in this post, I'd reach the following speculation: the creators have a contract that entitles them to vote on certain types of company action, a share of 50% of the revenue, and potentially representation of their votes in the form of one or two of the existing board seats. Essentially there being some company bylaws in place to enact that "ownership" mechanism. This would match w…
According to the blog post, they get 50% of the profit which would be much lower than 50% of the revenue. This is worse than other profit-sharing platforms. But hey, you own 50% of a shadow equity or whatever that means.
I think the last few paragraphs go off the rails. If creators didn't own (at least in some way) some controlling stake in Nebula, why would they publicly say that they do? Moreover, why would creators join Nebula if the terms were not beneficial to them in the first place? I find it funny that the author writes > It’s equally possible, however, that the system was set up in order to keep any meaningful power away fro…
The author’s thesis is that the creators are being tricked. They own some complex bespoke right in Nebula (“an entirely new kind of cooperative corporate governance”), which they’re told and believe is equivalent to ownership, but actually it’s a sham that will break down if Standard ever wants to do something that isn’t in the creators’ interests.
The author basically spends the entirety of one sentence dismissing the idea that there could exist a corporate governance model that allows creators to have a meaningful way to direct the company's decision making process and spends the rest of the time on a wild goose hunt to figure out the "actual" ownership percentages.
It was pretty obvious from the beginning given the repeated mentions of complex ownership models that the "real" numbers were not going to mean that creators owned "real" equity in the company. An investigation about what this actually means would've been a much better way to write this kind of essay.
Instead all we got was a long article with a conclusion that was reasonably obvious in hindsight, and no real evidence to support the thesis that "it's all just smoke and mirrors".
Interesting analysis! From the facts in this post, I'd reach the following speculation: the creators have a contract that entitles them to vote on certain types of company action, a share of 50% of the revenue, and potentially representation of their votes in the form of one or two of the existing board seats. Essentially there being some company bylaws in place to enact that "ownership" mechanism. This would match w…
That might very well be the case. It would probably be more honest to give the content creators stocks or say “partly ran by content creators” instead of “owned by content creators” in this case, no?
Honestly Nebula always felt off to me because of this marketing. They never sold it as a place where creators had a more equitable share, or where they had more creative freedom and control (which seem to be true), but they used the idea that they were "fighting the man" by going at it alone. It always felt like a half truth which, turns out, it is.
Also the price always felt too good to be true to me so I always suspected some sort of investment from somewhere to create a loss leader. Though the jury's still out on that. But having worked on video streaming online myself I know first hand how expensive it can get so I wonder how profitable the company is.
Surely this must be 6 million USD. I first thought this is a typo, but it is like that in the original SEC filing. Is this some convention I am just oblivious about?
"On August 23, 2021, the Company purchased a 12% ownership interest in Watch Nebula LLC for $6,000." Surely this must be 6 million USD. I first thought this is a typo, but it is like that in the original SEC filing. Is this some convention I am just oblivious about?
> Total Amount Sold $6,000,000 USD
You're referring to the note 2 of the prospectus supplement no. 12[2]. It indicates the following at the top of the notes section:
> (in thousands, except share and per share data)
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1881238/000188123821...
[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776909/000121390021...
For most respects and purposes, Standard Broadcast is the creators on Nebula.
To put this to an extreme: If only the six owners were creators they could claim 100% goes to the creators without lying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with that is that if you truly own something, you have the right to sell that thing, and nobody can say who you can sell it to . Give it six months and it wouldn’t be “creator-owned” any more, due to cash-strapped creators dumping stock for a payday. A co-op is structurally as much about ensuring that employees can’t transfer their equity to non-employees as it is about ensuring that employees have equity…
That might be the ultimate version of "ownership" but it's by no means the only useful version. Startups typically issue shares or options but restrict selling of them. Does that mean you don't own them? Well it's complicated, but in my opinion it's far more useful to say that yes you do own them than no you don't. I as an employee of a public company receive compensation in the form of shares, but I'm only allowed t…
In the case of startups, which are not yet public companies, even less so, as those shares can be dilluted, etc.
In the case of public conpanies I see them much in the same way I see shares of conpanies I buy in the stock market. I have no meaningful ownership of the company in those cases, it is just where I park some money looking for a return in investment.
A coop is actually a form of ownership, even if ironically you can't sell that ownership.