Ask HN: Has anyone tried alternative company models (like a co-op) for SaaS?
Alternative ownership models for SaaS—such as worker and customer cooperatives, profit‑sharing LLCs, and nonprofit or foundation-controlled entities—are attracting interest as a way to align incentives between founders, workers, and users and avoid the typical VC-driven “enshittification” cycle. Commenters share concrete examples from tech and non‑tech co‑ops, outline practical concerns around governance, capitalization, legal structure, and exits, and point to organizations and resources that help design bylaws and ownership frameworks. While many advise prioritizing product–market fit first, there’s broad agreement that cooperative or hybrid models can work, especially at smaller scales or in mission-driven niches.
Types of Alternative Structures Mentioned
- Worker cooperatives: tech worker coops, a residential trash collection coop, local hosting providers; “no distinction between worker and owner,” often equal revenue distribution, little or no equity.
- Consumer/customer cooperatives: grocery and outdoor retailers, credit unions, farm CSAs, banking/payment networks, and proposals for customer-owned SaaS (email, infra, publishing tools).
- Hybrid / multi-stakeholder models: suggestions like split ownership between employees and customers, or generalized “fair shares commons” structures that represent multiple stakeholder groups.
- Conventional entities with alternative purpose: standard corp or LLC whose shares are held by a foundation, coop, or SPV; profit-sharing LLCs where contributors get profit interests without governance power.
Customer- and Worker-Owned SaaS Ideas
- Several people are experimenting with or have tried customer-owned or coop-like SaaS (hosting, email, dev infra, publishing platforms).
- Advocates see it as a way to align user, worker, and product interests, avoid “enshittification,” and sustain open source.
- Skeptics question whether disconnected SaaS users will accept membership/ownership complexity versus simple subscriptions.
Equity, Profit Sharing, and Governance
- Equity alone may not ensure real ownership; voting rights and transparency over salaries/benefits matter.
- Profit-sharing interests are seen as fair and motivating when founders are not aiming for hyper-growth or exit.
- Dynamic/”fluid” equity and “exit to community” models are mentioned as ways to recognize contributions and eventually hand ownership to users/workers.
Legal, Capital, and Practical Challenges
- Coops face issues with capitalization, bespoke legal work, and lack of turnkey “Stripe Atlas for coops.”
- Governance, bylaws, and firing/discipline mechanisms are hard; DAOs are cited as promising but currently overhead-heavy.
- Investment starvation and reluctance to modernize infrastructure are seen as common coop failure modes.
Perceived Benefits and Motivations
- Desire for economic democracy, less exploitative ownership structures, stable long-term products, and resistance to hostile acquisitions.
- Some argue a simple, non-greedy traditional company with fair pay and bonuses can achieve much of the intended “compassion” with less complexity.
Overall Tone
- Strong enthusiasm for experimentation and many concrete resources/examples.
- Simultaneous skepticism about scalability, governance complexity, and whether most customers actually want ownership rather than convenience.