> 
> You don’t see carbocations on double bonds very much, and here's a good reason: compared to sp3, there is more s character in the orbitals, so the empty orbital is held more closely to the nucleus. This is destabilizing if we’re talking about positive charge.
> 
> 
> 

([source](http://www.masterorganicchemistry.com/2011/03/11/3-factors-that-stabilize-carbocations/))

This doesn't really make sense. Positive charge arises from the lack of electrons. How does holding an empty orbital (regardless of whether that makes any physical sense) closer affect your stability if the empty orbital is ... *empty*? 

So, what is the exact reason sp2 (aren't most carbocations sp2 though?) and sp carbocations are generally less stable than their sp3 counterparts? 

**Also, how can we have an sp3 carbocation?** Huh?! 

![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/j0GJz.jpg)

The only reason I can think of is that it's energetically expensive to make an sp carbocation ... pulling electrons which are held more tightly to the nucleus away is probably harder than pulling away electrons which are not as close to the nucleus. 

I can't think of any reason why the end products would be any less/more stable ... if anything an sp carbocation should be more stable than an sp2 carbocation in that in the sp carbocation the electrons are held closer to the nucleus and therefore better stabilizing the nucleus.