Of course it's posssible for a founder to maintain complete control through those rounds. You just have to convince the investors to do the deal on terms that l

Of course it's posssible for a founder to maintain complete control through those rounds. You just have to convince the investors to do the deal on terms that leave you in control. Nothing illegal about that. And the investors here are very sophisticated venture capitalists. They understand very well what deals look like, and risks, and whatever else. Probably better than the founders themselves. And they wanted in badly enough that they were willing to sign on terms that kept Zuck in control. And that decision made them very, very, obscenely, filthy, rich. Not a bad investment decision at all. Minority shareholders do have rights, but keeping control as a founder is easy if the VCs want in badly enough. With facebook, they did.