This is usually resolved by requiring a minimum ownership stake for each prospective board member, and to make sure it represents a significant fraction of their total net worth.
To guarantee that the board would lose their shirts if they make decisions completely opposite to reality, thus motivating a more thorough investigation of what they see and hear.
What you’re saying is implied. They’re proposing requiring a minimum ownership percentage (I assume legally) would make board members care more about decisions because, as it is now—-according to the comment parent—-board members largely don’t care as long as their wallets get fatter.
It is quite similar, the most widespread usage historically would likely be the 18th century trading companies such as the British East India Company which used this method along with others to operate with a relatively tiny managerial workforce by modern standards.
There was another post on HN a few weeks back with an article that looked into it and the numbers were really staggering.
To guarantee that the board would lose their shirts if they make decisions completely opposite to reality, thus motivating a more thorough investigation of what they see and hear.