Once again: neither am I. You're arguing that EVERYONE's opportunity cost should be factored in. I'm saying that regardless of status (Founder, employee, etc)

Once again: neither am I. You're arguing that EVERYONE's opportunity cost should be factored in. I'm saying that regardless of status (Founder, employee, etc), that opportunity cost is a sunk cost, and examining it with respect to determining if an acqui-hire was a successful event is silly. The points I've laid out (working condition preferences, problem area, and future pay) aren't taken into account by simply looking at the potential money left on the table. All of those factors apply to all employees who are acqui-hired. A much better heuristic is to look at the set of possible alternatives at the point of the potential acqui-hire, because there isn't a better heuristic. But an acqui-hire could very well be a bad move for founders. If they have a better alternative on the table, the acqui-hire is a bad move. The answer is that "it depends". Simply looking at the potential money given up (by founder or all employees) doesn't capture most of what's important in determining if it's a success or failure.