I don't know. Many people do odd things for no reason other than their own curiosity. For example, there's the guy making soylent in an effort to create something that lets him avoid eating. Many would ask "why?" while they say "why not."
Also, selling only 10,000 shares lets him back out if he where to encounter a problem (such as one person buying all his shares and then demanding he act in ways he's uncomfortable with).
Soylent isn't a new concept. They joked about "bachelor chow" on Futurama, and I think most people who have ever owned a dog have wondered:
"Why can I buy 2 weeks worth of food for my dog, which she seems to love, that sits in a bag, requires no refrigeration, no preparation, and providers her all the nutrients that she needs for such a low price? Why can't I also eat dog food?"
> He kept the remaining 99.1 percent of himself but promised that his shares would be nonvoting: Heβd let his new stockholders decide what he should do with his life.
Well, he could just go ahead and back out. Which is separate from the discussion about the details of the ownership and corporate structure letting him back out, but still sort of successfully renders it moot.
Also, selling only 10,000 shares lets him back out if he where to encounter a problem (such as one person buying all his shares and then demanding he act in ways he's uncomfortable with).