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 what Standard have said about the setup, would match the Wendover documentary and its reference to "wizardwry" making it all work, and provide for input from creators and revenue to creators. Combining this with the phantom stock and how a sale would be handled, I think calling this "ownership" when summing it up in a single word for the purposes of a YouTube advert is... uncontroversial?
The alternative would be having each creator on the cap table, and my understanding is that is actually quite tricky to do at scale, and brings significant legal and tax implications for the creators and Nebula.
While this is all very interesting, and I appreciate the blog post, I do wonder if the answer here just boring.
This would match what Standard have said about the setup, would match the Wendover documentary and its reference to "wizardwry" making it all work, and provide for input from creators and revenue to creators. Combining this with the phantom stock and how a sale would be handled, I think calling this "ownership" when summing it up in a single word for the purposes of a YouTube advert is... uncontroversial?
The alternative would be having each creator on the cap table, and my understanding is that is actually quite tricky to do at scale, and brings significant legal and tax implications for the creators and Nebula.
While this is all very interesting, and I appreciate the blog post, I do wonder if the answer here just boring.