The name "trickle-down economics" is a political branding that misrepresents the tax and economic plan Reagan had during his terms as president. No one advocated giving more money to the rich and letting it come back down. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth is created. Reagan's plan was to ease both taxes and regulation in order to free up the market and allow people to enter it with greater ease and create more jobs by making not only the attainment of wealth, but its creation, more accessible. Whether or not this was successful is still something people debate.

That said, wanting others to fail is weird to me. When people spend more time moralizing the economic system in question (something I engaged in heavily in the past) than examining the actual results you get odd positions that ignore data. Almost always the moralizing aligns with political ideologies and the incentive changes from prosperity and safety to being on the winning team (spoiler alert, the winning team is always the politician in this scenario). I'm a consequential libertarian, and so if something provides truly the best (or at the very least demonstrably better) consequences economically for everyone, or the most amount, I am generally for it. If this company succeeds, the people investing and buying the product are doing so happily and by consent, and the employees do well without coercion or force, why would I be upset?

The market should be free precisely because it allows people to innovate and try like this if they choose, not despite experiments like this. So long as I'm not forced to participate why would I be mad that this company succeeds under this sort of model? Likewise, I would only be upset if it failed under the condition I was forced to participate or support it. If it succeeds I should be mad only if I am barred by anyone but the owners from participating. But make no mistake, free markets encourage this sort of experiment. The competition these companies prove to become when if they can make revolutionary modes successful improve wages and working conditions faster than government mandate. Resumes are flooding in, and why shouldn't they? If they make this successful then other companies will have to compete. If they can't make it work, then the market adjusts and the small amount of consenting people who participated pricipally bear the consequences. The government doesn't have to spend years rolling back politically motivated regulations that didn't work, the people are able to innovate again until something does work.

But bottom line, I would be thrilled to see this succeed, not out of a sense of moral duty, but because the consequences lead to increased prosperity for those involved and the competition from a radically different and successful model might serve to benefit even more people.