I’m just saying that some companies might release more information if the reaction wasn’t always adversarial. It’s not just meta. There’s a constant demand for outrage against big companies.

In that case, why shouldn’t original funders be retroactively converted to investors and be given a large part of the ownership?

You should maximize long term net worth, which often is in conflict with maximizing near term income. One can argue net worth is also correlated with compounding knowledge which is itself anti-correlated with "minimizing effort".

This whole viewpoint of work as a simple transaction hurts employees' long term prospects.

The part that consultants don’t talk about is that you have to pay them to learn your code / company too. Nobody can just jump in and add value immediately. So you’re paying for onboarding hours, you’re paying for other employees to educate the consultant, and so on.

Likewise as an engineer, I think the most interesting projects and companies err towards primarily full time people. So if my goal is to work on the most interesting projects, I’d want to work full time.

A lot of consultants, for example someone helping with SOC2 compliance, is mostly copy pasting a large document with recommendations and moving some paragraphs around based on interviews with the team.

Not different from your average lawyer helping with an estate plan or will. The reality is that for many things you do want the cheapest lawyer, because the project is simple and repetitive. It’s the uneducated that pay more. So yes for a murder trial I want to pay a lot for a lawyer, but for small things I don’t, and you shouldn’t either. I simply don’t buy the analogy.

Finally, while consulting might be good for cash flow to hours-worked efficiency, it’s not clear it will make a person wealthier than other forms of income. I’ve met rich employees, founders, but not so much independent consultants.