Thanks for linking to the previous AMA from when our rules were originally approved. There's actually also one from last year when we began trading stocks, but I don't quite know how to look up the URL right now - while also typing these answers.

Although an earlier version of our proposal did have a voting-rights mechanism, as part of a one-size-fits-all prescription, we ultimately decided against it. Personally, I was hoping to offer "long-term voting" as a principled compromise between standard governance and dual-class shares. But in the interim, dual-class shares have basically won in the market. I'm still hopeful as an industry we will be able to find better solutions in the future

Some, but there are also some very successful startups still run by their founders, like Tesla and (until recently) Amazon. Then there's Apple, which did much better after bringing the founder back.

(I've read that on average, companies run by founders tend to do better over the long term. I'm having trouble pulling up the source though; best I can find right now is the book 100 Baggers, quoting a study saying "there was often a large shareholder or an entrepreneurial founder involved.")