by Dan Frey
SEN. KAREN WILSON (D-NV): Listen, I’ve read the briefs from your lawyer, all the relevant arguments. What I’m asking is…what will be the outcome of that particular legal situation?
BOYCE: I don’t know, obviously.
SEN. KAREN WILSON (D-NV): But you’re able to see the future. You’ve raised money off utopian visions of your own success. Surely you can foresee the outcome of important struggles like this one.
BOYCE: Well…the window of our product is one year. So beyond that—
SEN. KAREN WILSON (D-NV): I’m aware of the “window.” I’ve reviewed this concept with a number of scientists. They’ve all assured me, there is no reason, if your technology is real, why you wouldn’t be able to create a Prototype that views a two-year gap. Or that communicates with itself even further in the future.
BOYCE: Yeah. Theoretically, yes, that is true. But in practice, that is not the case.
SEN. KAREN WILSON (D-NV): And…why not?
BOYCE: That is a question Adhi would be better equipped to answer. But the short and long of it is…we are not entirely sure.
EMAIL
From: Ben Boyce
To: Adhvan Chaudry
This SEC shit is keepin me up at night. Where are we on gettin a look at a further-off horizon? We gotta keep a competitive edge.
REPLY
B—
Based on your question, it appears that you never opened any of the progress reports I sent your way.
And you redirected my efforts from the longer-horizon Prototype
to the fantastical project of investigating physical travel through time.
—A
REPLY
Hey man, come on. I’m sure you could handle both, I didn’t mean to totally abandon that. And no offense but why would I read progress reports when you told me yourself that we were making no progress?
REPLY
B—
Sometimes it is worthwhile to explore the nature of failure.
Consider: we made a Prototype that can talk to itself 1 year in the future.
But we have never been able to make a Prototype that talks to itself 2 years in the future (or 3, or 4, or more).
So we ought to consider possible reasons
why the prototype receives no data signal
when we attempt to connect across a greater time-gap.
1. Some theoretical limit, akin to light speed.
-However, we have no other data to support this possibility,
and I can think of no mathematical basis for one.
2. The Prototype does not exist 2 years in the future.
-Which means it has been destroyed, and we must ask—why?
And by whom?
3. The Internet itself does not exist 2 years in the future.
-Which similarly means there has been some catastrophic destruction,
and we need to consider who perpetrated it? And why?
Given that it is clear our technology will provoke significant blowback,
the second and third possibilities are both deeply troubling.
I would say the most likely explanation is:
the world is on course toward some cataclysmic event
that will effectively destroy our entire informational infrastructure
on a time horizon somewhere between 1 and 2 years in the future.
—A
REPLY
Dude you are giving me such a headache here. Maybe it’s just a glitch? And you’re thinking too small. If there’s a limit to how we connect to the Internet of the future, maybe it’s just because there’s a different type of connection?
We all get information, and we make a choice about HOW WE SEE IT. I want The Future to be a corporate culture that is positive, optimistic, hopeful. So turn off your gloom and doom, and let’s get cracking on how to create positive change. Maybe our invention will be the thing that SAVES THE MOTHERFUCKIN WORLD!
REPLY
B—
Or, perhaps, quite the opposite.
—A
CHAPTER 13
NEWS ARTICLE—THEINFORMATION.COM—JUNE 28, 2021
ALPHABET MAKING $3B BUYOUT OFFER TO STARTUP “THE FUTURE”
Multiple anonymous sources from the tech giant (the parent company of Google, YouTube, and more) have confirmed that the offer is coming soon, and is expected to be in the $2–$4B range. Offer is for complete ownership of the company and all underlying rights to its technologies.
The Future has been in the news extensively ever since its founder Ben Boyce gave his famous “The Future Is Now” TED Talk. VCs have flocked to the company and it is estimated that they have raised $250M in the past few months, though little is known about a timeline for bringing their product to market.
Alphabet has tried to keep the offer quiet, probably in order to avoid a bidding war with other potential buyers, who have not, as of press time, weighed in.
More as this one develops.
SELECTION OF RESPONSES ON TWITTER
@HARVARDBIZ
If #TheFuture tech is for-real then this price would be a bargain. Gotta be a vetting process.
@KARASWISHER
This is insane. Theranos-level scam happening here. Boyce is doing a bait-and-switch. Guaranteed this is exactly what he wants. #thefuture #siliconvalley #bs
@LIN_MANUEL
Anyone else feel like this is some elaborate performance-art hoax satirical social commentary, and @HeyBenBoyce is gonna laugh in all our faces when it’s over?
@EMILYNUSSBAUM
A company called The Future sounds more like a Bond villain than a legitimate enterprise. Silicon Valley has officially jumped the shark.
@ELONMUSK
Hey @HeyBenBoyce I don’t know about 3B but I will pay 1B cash right now for your company and we will have way more fun than you ever would with google. #TheFuture
@PATTONOSWALT
Wish I’d bought futures in #TheFuture.
@KANYEWEST
Pay attention, this the moment Big Tech LITERALLY gets control of the future. We all fuckd. #thefuture #techpocalypse #finalact
EMAIL
From: Paolo Ventrini
To: Ben Boyce, Adhvan Chaudry
Boys, I’m sure you read the article this morning. I’ve been back-channeling to verify and am confident that it’s legit and we will see an offer later this afternoon. They are upset that this leaked, which could be both good and bad for us. Bad bc they will try to tie a firm clock to it. Good bc the need for them to resolve quickly might lead them to overpay. Let’s discuss.
REPLY
From: Ben Boyce
To: Paolo Ventrini, Adhvan Chaudry
Hey man, wow BIG NEWS. Holy shit. Let’s think about conditions here, and price of course. This leak will be good. Let’s see if we can get some other offers on the table. This could be perfect timing for an acquisition. I would try to get up to more like $10B if we can. I know that’s crazy for a startup but nobody’s ever seen anything like this. And we want to be involved too not just some handoff.
REPLY
From: Adhvan Chaudry
To: Ben Boyce, Paolo Ventrini
B&P—
We are not selling.
No way.
We have literally seen the future,
and we know that we’re not selling
so let’s just nip this in the bud.
—A
REPLY
From: Paolo Ventrini
To: Ben Boyce, Adhvan Chaudry
Boys, I appreciate your passion, however this is no
w a bigger situation than just you. We’ve taken on over $250M in VC at this point and we have a fiduciary obligation to do what’s best for those investors. At the end of the day, the Board will vote in the interest of the stakeholders. I know you’re among that group but you have 2 of the 5 votes, and I’m confident in how Samantha and David are going to vote. I don’t want this to be adversarial, I want to support you through the transition, just get on the right side of this.
Yours,
Paolo
REPLY (DRAFT)
From: Ben Boyce
To: Adhvan Chaudry, Paolo Ventrini
OK y’all let’s just take a deep breath here, I’m sure there is a solution that we can all get behind if we just
The previous draft was not completed or sent, apparently because while it was being composed, the following was sent.
REPLY
From: Adhvan Chaudry
To: Ben Boyce, Paolo Ventrini
P—
Are you honestly trying to strong-arm us into selling our own company?
I always imagined corporate villainy would be, I dunno…a bit more subtle?
—A
REPLY
From: Paolo Ventrini
To: Ben Boyce
Ben…your co-founder is treading on dangerous ground here. I’m reaching out directly in the hope that you can bring him into line.
REPLY
From: Ben Boyce
To: Adhvan Chaudry
Dude, you’re pissing off Paolo something fierce. And why aren’t you even open to this?! You’ve been looking for ways to change the future, alter the timeline or whatever, get out of this…we just got one HANDED to us.
REPLY
B—
After our last discussion, YOU convinced ME
Not to abdicate responsibility here.
Not to settle for a lesser role in this history-making endeavor.
I didn’t quit Google to end up working for them again six months later.
And you didn’t build this company to be an out-to-pasture middle manager.
—A
REPLY
Come on man, this could be HUGE. And I mean, I don’t think I need to point out, your ownership stake is still at 30%, meaning this goes through, you will be a BILLIONAIRE. Before 30. Don’t write this off so quick. And don’t let your pride get in the way. Getting paid a literal BILLION dollars is not the same as being a cubicle bitch. Besides, Alphabet has the infrastructure to help us scale up and get to market.
REPLY
B—
Do you want to be a billionaire, or do you want to be someone who matters?
If this goes through, you really think they’re gonna keep you on as CEO?
No way.
You wanna be Andrew Mason/David Karp?
Most ppl don’t know who the fuck they are anymore.
Or do you want to be Zuck/Elon?
The Future won’t be the same if it’s just one more Google sibling.
Look at Insta after the FB acquisition.
You’ve got money, you don’t need to sell your soul.
I came over here because I believed in you.
I still do.
—A
REPLY
From: Ben Boyce
To: Paolo Ventrini
Listen Paolo, Adhi’s not gonna bite on this. Maybe if we can go back to them and change up the nature of the offer? But it might just be a done deal. Do you think this could also fuel another round of growth investment?
REPLY
No. It is extremely naïve to imagine Alphabet will pursue/accept anything other than outright acquisition. And right now, we don’t NEED more investment. We have plenty of runway. We either need REVENUE (which is still far off) or a leveraged BUYOUT (and this is a pretty great one).
I expect you will understand these points, but I want you to consider something seriously here. Does this company work with Adhi in a position of managerial authority?
We’re living in a strange moment in the history of business, when it is common for engineers and technologists to find themselves running billion-dollar firms. But the skill set that enables someone to envision and realize new technology does not prepare them for the tasks of hiring, deal management, cost control, PR, etc. For every Zuckerberg success story, there are a dozen flaming wrecks on the shoulder of the information superhighway.
You need to ask yourself: does Adhi have the temperament to manage?
Of course not. YOU DO. That is your talent and your unique skill. If you want this company to achieve its true potential, you need to realign the power structure, or he will always be a limiting factor on the growth potential of The Future.
REPLY
Hey Paolo, I hear what you’re saying and I know what you mean. Obviously it’s delicate. Just so I understand, what exactly are you proposing?
REPLY
I recommend taking Adhi off the Board. Let him keep his CTO role for now but tell him that he will henceforth take a backseat on issues of corporate governance. Trust me, he will get richer in the process, and honestly, he will enjoy his life more.
I’m coming to you candidly here, because I already know my co-investors are aligned with this position, which means we have the Board votes to unseat Adhi already. But doing so against the wishes of the CEO is a bad look for all of us. So let’s line up on this, and make the transition as smooth as possible.
REPLY
It’s a dicey proposition, but it does make sense to me. I know we need at least 5 on the Board, so we’ll obviously have to replace him. Now that Leila is part of the company, I think we could move her into position in his place.
Now, I know what you want to say about the optics of putting my wife in that slot, but I need someone in there who I trust. And yeah, we’ll probably be together on most things, but if you think Leila sides w me on every issue, you don’t know my wife. Besides, you and your little finance crew will still outnumber us 3-2. Plus I think as long as we’re a board of 5 grown-ups who want to make money, we’ll be able to work together. I’ll support ousting Adhi if you’ll support bringing in Leila.
REPLY
Are you making this an explicit quid pro quo? Fine. As long as your wife is aligned with the sale, we will support her.
CORPORATE MEETING MINUTES
Call to Order:
June 30, 2021, 1:05 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Benjamin Boyce, CEO; Adhvan Chaudry, CTO; Paolo Ventrini, Director; Samantha Vargas, Advisor; David Lee, Advisor and Secretary
NEW BUSINESS
Motion
To Adopt New Board Member: Leila Keener-Boyce
Proposed by: CEO Ben Boyce
Seconded by: Director Paolo Ventrini
Votes in Favor: Ben Boyce, Adhvan Chaudry, Paolo Ventrini, Samantha Vargas, David Lee
Votes Against: None
RESOLVED—The Adoption of New Board Member Leila Keener-Boyce
CHANGE IN ATTENDANCE: New Board Member Leila Keener-Boyce joined the meeting 1:14
Motion
To Remove Board Member: Adhvan Chaudry
Proposed by: Director Paolo Ventrini
Seconded by: Director Samantha Vargas
Votes in Favor: Paolo Ventrini, Samantha Vargas, David Lee
Votes Against: Ben Boyce, Adhvan Chaudry, Leila Keener-Boyce
Per Corporate Constitution, Tie Vote Fails to Pass
Motion DENIED
Motion
To Accept Proposed Acquisition Offer from Alphabet
(Deal Memo Attached, Addendum A)
Proposed by: Director Paolo
Ventrini
Seconded by: Director Samantha Vargas
Votes in Favor: Paolo Ventrini, Samantha Vargas, David Lee
Votes Against: Ben Boyce, Adhvan Chaudry, Leila Keener-Boyce
Per Corporate Constitution, Tie Vote Fails to Pass
Motion DENIED
CHANGE IN ATTENDANCE: Paolo Ventrini departed from meeting 1:23 following failed Motion to Accept Proposed Acquisition Offer from Alphabet.
ADJOURNMENT
Board agrees to Adjournment until next meeting: July 15, 2021
Minutes Recorded By:
David Lee, Secretary
