The founders are probably not the owners of a large majority of the business. Most of the owners are not drawing any salary.

Look, lying is bad sure. It would be better if they had been honest in November. But nobody here is actually arguing that the layoffs are fine, they're only mad about the comms.

>Most of the owners are not drawing any salary.

If they are founders and they chose to leave, that's their freedom to do so. Just like any employee you don't get a salary for leaving just because you used to work there.

if you're an owner who bought in, you already got your money. You got a steady profit from sitting there and operating a business at best. At worst you made a bad business decision. You're not owed profit.

So yes, they are both paid, or gambled and had a bad opportunity cost. That's life. I don't see it as justification for them to "deserve" their sale, even if it's legally their call.

>But nobody here is actually arguing that the layoffs are fine, they're only mad about the comms.

Many people in this discussion are in fact arguing that the layoffs are fine. to paraphrase a few

> "It's obvious if you know who Bending Spoons is"

> "That's at-will employment, it's fair"

> "they have to run a business"

> "most of the owners are not drawing any salary"

So yes, even if it's against their best interests there are still so many beholden to defend billionaires. And that is why I asset seemingly obvious points. What's your argument here again?