But I don’t think that’s true; I don’t think anyone really transferred based on energy (aka viewers) built up specifically from SoT. It just kinda stopped and didn’t go anywhere because nothing really got built up so much as randomly happened to be there because of a variety streamer.

It didn’t really have momentum, it had - as you said - a content update and a single big streamer who was getting it up there. Momentum doesn’t just end suddenly; that’s kinda the definition of momentum.

“No one hated him when no one thought he was lying about being the victim of a hate crime”

“I don’t know what I’m talking about but I want to be mad”

No, those big ass bonuses can’t be used for other projects; they’re not cash. They’re stock, from the internal security structure. That’s not how this works at all. You want to sustain a company? Then I’d listen to the people who have internal data about how to run it. 

How so? Did they not just have a great year?

And your acting like a company isn’t allowed to make its own headcount decisions or decide how to focus itself, and discounting the planning of actual professionals in the company based on apparently nothing.

This isn’t doing anything to pump stocks in the short term (RIFs can just as easily have the opposite effect), and besides which, stock based compensation typically only becomes available years later (precisely because corporate America already knows how to structure things for the long term health of a company).
I’m…

“I don’t understand the corporate world but want to get mad”
There you go; feel free to use that one.

“Most people”, of course, like the 92% of employees who didn’t lose their jobs. Layoffs suck, but apparently people would prefer to just, what, have it be illegal to fire anyone? No more restructurings allowed? A company isn’t allowed to dictate what it wants to focus on?

Yeah, clearly I should be listening to people who *don’t* know internal metrics and who *haven’t* spent years at a company.

Sorry I know how corporate finance works. A company’s role is not to maximize hiring.

Yes, it’s a tricky business to be in, financial projections. If someone could figure it out perfectly, they’d make the stock market obsolete. That doesn’t, however, mean that people can’t be good at it, and generally speaking, I trust professionals with their jobs. The hardest part is less about mitigating greed, but…

It’s less about “making as much money as possible” which is their legal obligation, but more about keeping shareholder interests in mind. Which ties pretty closely, but it’s not the exact same. Otherwise, agreed entirely. The primary role of a company is very much not “hire as many people as possible”.

“But still” is the point. This isn’t money which he’s being handed in a big sack which is otherwise being taken from other rank and file employees, this is stuff that’s going to be given out to him in a few years, and even then it’s not cash.

For one, I can’t find anything even close to that number (but it may have come out today). For two, it’s mostly in stock which will vest over time, a structure which is very much not interchangeable with a normal salary (so it’s wrong to say “well why pay him that much when they can just give that to the employees!”)

So you're saying that yes, you know how better to run the company than the internal people? I've seen companies lose value with RIFs. 

They're not being paid 65m.

How would we know better than the internal finance people about if this is the correct route to be able to do even better next year?

Shareholders - which can be anyone, as this is a public company - do vote on the direction of the company every year, and can get people kicked out of roles if they disagree.