5 ms·

I think it's relevant to point out the former CTO explicitly stated earlier today in the thread that the founder wasn't kicked out: "I'm the former CTO of Brai

I think it's relevant to point out the former CTO explicitly stated earlier today in the thread that the founder wasn't kicked out: "I'm the former CTO of Braintree and one of the founding employees. I was there when Bryan Johnson hired Bill Ready as CEO and decided to move to Chairman. The authors of the TechCrunch article were either misinformed or speculating when they said that Bryan "lost his position" and that Bill joining was a "decision made by Accel." Bryan made the decision to hire Bill and move into the Chairman role without pressure from anyone." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6338053 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6338053

vidarh 13y ago
That may very well be true - if he wants the company sold, why not, especially if he wants to avoid getting tied into working for an acquiring company for years. That said, I've also been involved in a company (as co-founder) where finding C-level execs to parade around to state that the CEO (one of my co-founders) left voluntarily would be easy enough. Most of them wouldn't know differently either, not having been privy to the conference calls where the investors made it clear they'd find an excuse to fire him for cause and tie him up in court over his shares for the next few years if he didn't "volunteer" to take 6 months pay, put on a brave face and leave. What most of them saw was the show my co-founder put on to get the best deal possible and leave gracefully. I'll hasten to add that I don't know this guy, so for what I know he was in the room for every conversation Bryan Johnson had with the investors at Braintree or otherwise actually did have the inside track. Just pointing out that it's also easy to think you have the inside track on these types of things without having a clue about what actually went on.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  Second this. There can be many layers of understanding to things like this and it is all too easy to think you were an eyewitness to a real life event when in fact you were just watching a well-choreographed ballet.

vidarh 13y ago

That may very well be true - if he wants the company sold, why not, especially if he wants to avoid getting tied into working for an acquiring company for years. That said, I've also been involved in a company (as co-founder) where finding C-level execs to parade around to state that the CEO (one of my co-founders) left voluntarily would be easy enough. Most of them wouldn't know differently either, not having been privy to the conference calls where the investors made it clear they'd find an excuse to fire him for cause and tie him up in court over his shares for the next few years if he didn't "volunteer" to take 6 months pay, put on a brave face and leave. What most of them saw was the show my co-founder put on to get the best deal possible and leave gracefully. I'll hasten to add that I don't know this guy, so for what I know he was in the room for every conversation Bryan Johnson had with the investors at Braintree or otherwise actually did have the inside track. Just pointing out that it's also easy to think you have the inside track on these types of things without having a clue about what actually went on.

jacquesm 13y ago
Second this. There can be many layers of understanding to things like this and it is all too easy to think you were an eyewitness to a real life event when in fact you were just watching a well-choreographed ballet.