It sounds like despite their founder-status, they were largely removed from positions of responsibility within the company. They were disagreeing with the decisions being made, weren't meshing well with the new management, and had fully-earned the value of their equity in the company.<p>So what's wrong with them leaving? It seems like it's better for everyone. If the new management is right about the strategy being implemented, they'll do better without dissension from the founders. And the founders are now free to put their talents to use on new projects, where they aren't restrained.<p><i>pg:</i> Do you know anyone at Benchmark Capital or Accel Partners who might comment on this? I'm curious to know how VCs feel about this situation in particular, and in general on what are/aren't legitimate times/reasons for founders to leave a company.
Funny that Techcrunch can't do basic equity math...<p>If their combined stakes we're 5% and they got 2.5M$ each then the valuation was 100M$ not 50M$...