I've been in VC for ~10 years, and we see a lot of founder squabbles. A lot of what makes for great companies is simple: a smart team in a great market, just p

I've been in VC for ~10 years, and we see a lot of founder squabbles. A lot of what makes for great companies is simple: a smart team in a great market, just plowing through things for 3-5 years. That 3-5 years part is the one that trips up (a) startup newcomers and (b) people who were very successful in school. You get way beyond the "theory" of what you're building very quickly, and there is a LOT of dull blocking & tackling work. To my ear it sounds like you are frustrated with the slow pace of the work and want to do things that are more intellectually interesting. This is more or less an anti-pattern at the ~1 year mark, and you might consider that your CEO knows more than you think, just not about the technical side. I can't see a scenario where pointing to an online equity calculator is going to help, so don't go there. If you're convinced that the CEO is damaging the company, you should want them gone, not still around with a little bit less incentive to succeed. Mostly though, you should consider very seriously whether, for all your VR chops and accolades, you are even correct in assuming the CEO is not able, vs whether you are experiencing Dunning-Kruger or simply don't like them.