There's an old adage that headquarters is wherever the CEO works. Most major corporate headquarters moves are to be closer to wherever the CEO calls home. Taking that adage to its literal extreme there will only ever be 99% remote companies as effectively the corporate headquarters is still the CEO's home. Though of course the adage isn't meant to be taken solely literally, and its more just a lens into a power relationship, and even a "majority remote" company may still need (or unintentionally build) the power of a headquarters on paper. (Maybe not directly to make the CEO happy, but accountants for tax reasons, shareholders for accountability reasons, or other reasons.)

>There's an old adage that headquarters is wherever the CEO works.

Is that an adage or it is the literal meaning of the word "headquarters"? The head's quarters - and the premier definition of headquarters if you look it up in Merriam.

I've worked for a company where the CEO's home office had less than 10% of employees, and the HQ (for lack of a better term) halfway across the country had greater than 70% of employees.

Seems like it would depend on role distribution. If all the senior leadership work from an office together and everyone else is remote, I'd call that office the headquarters regardless of employee percentage.

Even a 92% remote-working company would seem to me to be functionally indistinguishable from a 100% remote work company. You still need to have the processes and practices in place to support an almost entirely remote team.

They'd be quite different because the 8% who are together would tend to have a cabal of connectedness.