> Wow, with Jack departing, the Twitter board collectively owns almost no shares! Objectively, their economic interests are simply not aligned with shareholders.

Since they own no appreciable equity in Twitter except for Jack, their power is in proportion to Twitter's capacity to moderate content, not the market value. Elon threatens that. It would be shocking if they did not fight him.

Do most boards have appreciable equity in the company? I don't think that's the norm for publicly traded companies.

Wow, was this ever public knowledge prior to this post? Also, is this even legal:

> When I was fired in 2008 and made chair, the board took most of my shares away from me.

Well they can make a deal along the lines of 'give back those shares or we'll issue millions of new shares and give them to everyone we like except you'.

He owned <10% at the time so it’s a little bit of a mischaracterisation to say “most” as if it means he lost control because of it. He did not lose a meaningful amount in the context of a conversation about control, he lost a few % of the company.

I think he meant "my shares" as in the shares that he personally had at the time.

Confusing how they could take away shares he already owned and had fully vested.

Was that the context?

Most likely unvested shares