They didn't have to work for the proverbial Man before they got rich, really. I would surmise that one of the reasons they started Mint was to avoid having to w

They didn't have to work for the proverbial Man before they got rich, really. I would surmise that one of the reasons they started Mint was to avoid having to work for what most people consider to be the Man (e.g., typical corporate jobs). Not the only reason, but I imagine it wasn't last on the list. Talented, ambitious people have this option available, even without being "fuck you" rich, by joining companies that don't suck; the option they don't have available is "do nothing." Not all work is thankless toiling. And you don't need FU money to have more than one option available that prevents your family from starving. Others may disagree, but I thought this was a bit hyperbolic and cliche. There are millions of shades of gray between $170 million and poverty, and I can't imagine the Mint guys, and their families, were going to go hungry if they didn't accept this deal. But I get what you mean, and I'm inclined to agree with your larger point. The founders of Mint aren't beholden to anyone but themselves and their shareholders, and I wouldn't expect them to put their lives on hold for my comfort, convenience, and need to have faith in the goodness of mankind. In the same position, I'd have done the same. The solution to this, if Intuit completely drops the ball in managing Mint well, is for someone else to launch another competitor to take Intuit on. That gets the best of both worlds, people getting rewarded for creating something great, and people always have another option outside of Intuit.