Neat edge case! Perhaps SAFE notes or other dividend-paying instruments should account for this by capping executive salaries or trigger dividend payouts at a certain salary dollar amount. Though, admittedly, I've never heard of a founder or executive using their salary instead of taking dividends as an end run around paying everyone their fair share of dividends. It seems possible though.
"Investors' worst nightmare" seems very off. Most SAFE notes give you dividends that are on par with how corporations issue dividends. Assuming there is cash flow, you should be getting dividends.
If the dividends are so low that you will never be reasonably paid back you can often negotiate to get out in some form. Very low cash flow only with no growth seems to be the only exception...which I'd guess would only exist if something such as high revenue or some unique IP existed to make the equity very valuable and therefore the company worth running.
With a convertible note as opposed to a SAFE, you either need to extend the maturity date or get paid back your note with interest.
Both SAFEs and convertible notes seems to have a path to exit in some reasonable form.
"The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday made it nearly impossible for Americans to sue federal law enforcement officers who violate their constitutional rights, further narrowing the already limited path to hold U.S. officials accountable for even egregious misuse of their authority."
When Chevron was active you could not challenge the US constitution not applying to border patrol because of Chevron. This is literally the CPBs only line of defense.
In the next year I would imagine there will be a movement to overturn what the CPB has done.
It was never allowed to be challenged post 1984. Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s. Before 1953 people didn't even need CPB. Your counterpoint is outrageous.
Just keep in mind that the Chevron case allowed the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the United States to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border, because they interpreted the US constitution to mean anyone on US "soil" to mean: not literally on the US "soil", though only once you cross the border. Nice self-serving interpretation.
If every commit of software had the potential to put someone in prison or ruin their life based on a law that didn't exist though the agency itself interpreted for their own self-interest, I would certainly want a meeting for every commit.
Furthermore, it's not "every commit" - it's commits that are questionable or have varying interpretations. Most litigation occurs relating to known laws that has substantial case law relating to it. The edge case situations are the ones that are not accounted for, and they're the far minority of litigation. It's these edge case situations which will require a meeting, and deservedly so. I'm sure you wouldn't be against that, however if you have facts to provide that would show this would be a bad outcome or what I stated would in fact lead to an absurd result, then please go ahead an provide it.
If you give an agency the power to interpret the law that congress has prescribed to the agency, the agency will almost always chose an interpretation that is in their self-interest - often leading to a corrupt (really, just an outright wrong) interpretation of the law.
It's surprising that Chevron was ever even case law. Thank goodness we have a set of justices that are actually looking to get rid of conflicts of interest and focus on an objective and conflict-free rule of law.
It seems based on the dissent liberals want to relish in giving government agencies power to interpret what they want, which is consistent with yesterday's dissent from the liberals where the liberals dissented with the SEC case where the liberals dissent stated that the SEC should be able to prosecute individuals in their own SEC-based rules with their own SEC-based court.
The court system is moving to ensure there are more checks and balances and that the law is interpreted and prosecuted in a way that has less conflict of interest.