he's no longer involved in uber as CEO, why would he want to tie his wealth to something he's no longer steering? there's not even an argument for Optics here.
I agree. Although there are norms for the practice of selling large personal stakes, generally someone who is/has been a founder would announce their intent to diversify with a schedule — ie I’m going to sell x% over the next 3 years regardless of the price for purposes of diversification. Most investors accept that. I think in this case, his image is so tarnished that pretty much anything he does will be greeted with scorn.
So it can only succeed if he’s steering it? Doesn’t sound like a good business
? Would you want a majority of your wealth tied to a business you used to work at? Or would you rather use it towards things you are actively working on?
I want it tied to a good business. I’d tie my wealth to Google (when they were the same age as Uber), whether I’m the CEO there or not. It doesn’t matter because it’s a great business. If Travis is selling then he agrees it’s a bad business.