They can have more revenue than the cap I’m just saying they should be publicly listed.

Oh, misunderstood. You still need to think about what it is you wish to optimise for. I am not a regulation hater but naive regulations tend to cause rather than mitigate pathological economic incentives. It is very very hard to get these kinds of things right.

Another thing, one related to your original post: it is, of course, good imho to have a working hand-out system so that you don't starve when you are out of a job, or are forced to have to work for really shitty conditions.

This causes another problem, however. It is very easy to get dependant on these hand-outs because the difference in pay between the jobs you are able to do and the size of the hand-out can be very small. Even negative. We have (had) this problem in Sweden for a long time. And it is a problem because when people are less poor, then things cost more money because of it. Cynical, I know. Economics is very very hard.

I’m optimising for concentration of ownership. So if you allow a privately held company to get too valuable it’s harder to enforce against concentration of ownership, much easier to do with a publicly traded company IMHO.

In relation to your concerns about a job guarantee they’re all addressed in writing, in particular by Pavlina Tcherneva who has done the most comprehensive work on the subject along with Bill Mitchell and Randall Wray. It should be noted that I disagree with Bill Mitchell on some political issues but his JG work is rock solid.

what makes public listing a good criteria for which the revenue cap be removed?

in fact, i dont get the rationale for revenue caps at all. It doesn't produce less inequality, and only produces inefficiencies.

Cap on revenue per employee for a company before it must be publicly listed so that a cap on ownership percentage can be more simply enforced.