Absolutely. And you'd see much less hypergrowth mindset, and a willingness to go slow, steady, and do it right.

How would the structure change?

I've had good rapport with those who are honest about their startups being businesses, as they're usually also the same types who understand that working for them is just a job, and that a job at a startup comes with its own risks, as well.

People that go out of their way to say that their startups have a higher mission make me uneasy. I don't know if they're just trying to convince others that they're running something other than for-profit businesses driven by expected returns on investment for investors, or if they truly believe it themselves. It's either borderline manipulation or delusion, and neither are something I want to hitch myself to.

I can think of a couple of companies whose public face represents "Get filthy rich by changing the world". Tesla, for one. Maybe SpaceX too.

Oh, no, that reads like I just turned into a Musk fanboy. Surely there's got to be some non-Musk company that I can add to that list?

It seems to be the case that if you give someone a bunch of money, they'll stop wanting to change the world for the better. There are thousands of billionaires who could each end hunger and homelessness but have chosen not to.

As a regular person, I like startups where the spiel is "Have a fabulous life and be pretty comfortable while doing things that even after some serious devil's advocacy seem as if they might make the world a better place".

It's one way to do it, not the only or simplest one? And once someone had done it, they tend to transition a bit to exploitation mode because why not (they think)? Is my impression