Founders will push to list on this exchange because tenure voting systems will advantage them more than anybody else.

I'm sure Adam Neumann and his cronies on the WeWork board would have loved to be able to list on the LTSE. Would make it much harder for non-colluding market participants to call them out on their self dealing!

But they didn't propose tenure voting.

"With respect to CII’s concerns about tenure voting rights, the SEC noted that the LTSE had not yet proposed those rights and that, as a registered exchange, it would be required to file with the SEC any changes to its rules as a proposed rule change, allowing for public notice and comment."

The organizers are talking about tenure voting, "not proposing" means they have not formally filed with the SEC for permission.

i.e. there is no exchange that offers tenure voting, and it's not clear that there ever will be one.

Tenured voting is already legal on NYSE and NASDAQ (https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/03/07/tenure-voting-and...): it simply requires the company to choose to adopt it and figure out how they would administer it. Right now, tech companies are going with dual-class instead, which only entrenches the founders rather than all long-term investors and is trivial to implement.

This is just not true, at least in the sense that the LTSE is trying to use the term 'tenure voting'.

Right now, every share of a particular security is equally fungible. When Person A sells security X to Person B, the security does not change. Dual class shares are a way to hack around accomplishing something similar to tenure voting, but that hack is that they issue two different types of securities (which, of note, companies have been issuing many types of securities for a long time), but for that security to trade on a listed exchange, it cannot be selectively prejudicial about who owns it. It's the same security with the same rights.

Right, we're discussing the plans for the long term stock exchange. It hasn't been created yet.

It sounds like the article is about the (proper noun) Long Term Stock Exchange, and whether or not it will make a difference. I tend to think of problems like that in the context of first asking "what is the Long Term Stock Exchange?" At the moment, at best it's a marketing ploy that advertises emphasis on long-termism, but without any approvals to do anything that they think supports long-termism. And the ideas they want to implement don't look feasible from a legal perspective. So, knowing these things, will it make a difference?