I am not a fan of some of his ideas either, especially the ones tending towards libertarianism. Some other ideas instead are quite decent, like how he thinks companies should give back to the community. He also built a tech company without VC funding and with a good share of ownership for workers (which I think is nice), without any marketing (which I despise as industry) and generally without the predatory nature that 98% of tech companies have nowadays.
I am sure you are referring to the Brave debacle of months back, and FWIW, I agree with his position on that particular issue. Anyway, considering that I have no ideas about the positions for the CEOs/founders of the alternatives, I think it’s still a very worthy compromise to have a good product (incl. nonfunctional qualities like privacy, ecological impact etc.).
No, 670k from 42 investors means less than 20k of investment per investor. 670k is already a number ridiculously small for VC funding, but 20k is basically nothing.
Also, after just a few years, 37 employees and 30k users the company became profitable, which is an insanely low period/scale for usual VC funded tech companies.