Sure, why wouldn't they? You can't really convince me that 'taking away' ownership from the founder is a big deal... by the time a company's net worth is high enough to give him a billion dollars worth of stock, that company has far more than just him alone making the company worth that much. You also can't really say that the janitor is less of a deal than any other random employee and thus deserves no stock... It takes everyone to make things work.

As to the actual 'value' of the company, and therefore the owner's worth? Ask him how much he wants for his shares, and he is forced to sell at that amount for say, the next 6 months if people want the stock. This prevents him from giving a ridiculously low value and gaming the system so he doesn't have the net worth he truly does, because it would trigger a rush of people buying the stock for such a good deal, and it also prevents him from giving a ridiculously high number to manipulate people into buying stock, as it would push the net worth too high.

Would that idea work for every company? I know there would be issues with implementation. Is it the owner that gets asked the stock price? The board? A shareholder meeting? The employees of the company? Each would have its downsides, and manipulation possibilities.

I don't know, mate, these are just things off the top of my head. I'm sure with some serious thought from people much more in tune with these concepts than I am, we'd have a good framework to go off of.