The problem is not really the CEO, though he's the one getting the attention here.
It's the new board that got 3 new heads from IronSource and Sequoia VC (who pushed for the IronSource merger).
It's the new board that got 3 new heads from IronSource and Sequoia VC (who pushed for the IronSource merger).
Many of those other investments date from the 90s and 2000s.
The firm has since lost its mojo. The transcript of the discussions behind the SBF investment are embarrassing.
No one is pointing fingers for the latter.
SBF would have never done anything with a simple BoD requirement: independent auditor. That was not done by BoD. This is a very standard requirement for most companies beyond A. SBF got special treatment. Why is the question
Also, a good CEO knows how to manage the board and provide sensible strategic alternatives; even if the board liked this dumb move, it's the CEO's fault for not having leveraged the company's resources (business directors, other C-level executives, etc) to produce a better strategy. The board was certainly pushing for more profits, but the CEO is the one to say how the company will get these increased profits.
So in comes the fees. But then those pesky LTS means nothing I charge to 2024 Unity will stick next quarter, nor all of 2024. The only question at this point is why I chose to do install based fees instead of the Rev share model standard in every other industry. It might have worked if they undercut Unreal and said "we'll only charge 2% of revenue after $1m". I wonder what the CTO was thinking because everywhere I've read suggests that there is simply no effective and ethical way to track installs as a Middleware.
I agree the board is responsible, it's too dramatic an f-up for just one.