What's interesting is this, which speaks to a level of entitlement that's kind of bonkers: "I imagine you believe that the decision to stop being CEO of the co

What's interesting is this, which speaks to a level of entitlement that's kind of bonkers: "I imagine you believe that the decision to stop being CEO of the company you started should be your decision, not someone else’s. But the fact is, it often isn’t. Often, it is the board of directors’ decision." The CEO serves at the pleasure of the shareholders. If the founder wishes to maintain control until he or she decides to walk away, there is a very simple choice that will absolutely ensure this: maintain control of 51% of the voting shares. The interests of the owners of a firm trump the interests of an employee of the firm. A minority-shareholder founder-CEO is an employee with equity, and can absolutely be fired. The tl;dr is that if you dilute your ownership, you're not in control anymore. This is often part of the deal. But don't act like it's some huge injustice. It's literally the deal the you made.