I full well understand the concept of proportionality in the RS. However, I think you would have to agree that doubling the amount permitted to be allocated to management is dilutive to the retail shareholder and cuts in half management's risks from subsequent dilution (relative to the retail holder). As to your tongue-in-cheek post regarding finding a company that doesn't grant options to management - that is not the issue. The issue is how much is fair? Bumblebee posted a while back that MB's full exercise of his options would give him a pre-tax profit of $4.2 million.(We do not know if he sold all or a portion for taxes, and it's not my business). I am not arguing whether or not that is excessive - but I would respectfully argue that twice that for a company this size is.(and he is only one of how many grantees?) Again, I am not against options -they are a useful tool, but can also be used to dilute a company out from under the retail shareholder.

So I guess the only issue in my statement is the magnification effect on dilution of future options allocation on a smaller float. If those allocations remained proportionate to the reduced float, certainly it would not - but somehow I feel future VCs and partners might be more demanding.