I think a key to the optional corporation is the "optional" part.
The value proposition of the optional corporation is the flexibility for individuals to nimbly move between organisations and business models.
This is important, I think, because as modern society starts to change more rapidly and globalisations becomes more of a force we need to creatively destroy our own opportunities and create new ones in order to react appropiately to changing circumstances.
When an optional corporation has artifacts which constrain our ability to be nimble, not only can we not evolve appropiately, but we fear investing time because of our concerns that the resulting business model will be able to evolve in the ecology the optional corporation has created.
I also think rules when fair and transparent create room for flexibility, and where rules which are people based (ie, must past Joe Linden to collect 200$), you lose a lot of that imporant flexibility.
Also, the business models becomes less about products for consumers and more about making the people who run the optional corporation happy.
A big value proposition of the optional corporation is the removal of politics. Because it's a lose affiliation of individuals who are not tied together, the political aspect is removed.
Politics, in my opinion, are a huge value destroyer in all modern companies.
Another huge is competing with the optional employee. Since they do not have loyalty to you and you do not have loyalty to them, competition is quite probable.
In general, I think this is OK when the employee can plug in their services with another corporation. It starts becoming problematic however when their services are not easily transferable (no competition exists to the optional corporation).
I suppose what an optional corporation can do is help educate its optional employees on where else they can provide their services and try to not lock them into a point where ultimate frustration occurs.