Right, but you have to consider how early on this was, with little venture raised; multiples are way better. My point was bundling wins in the long term.
What you're missing is that he was able to build his company, run it for years, get paid well and step down from the CEO position with a stake worth a couple of billion dollars.
You can't always reduce everything to money. Lots of entrepreneurs, perhaps the majority, would consider Drew's outcome to be the ideal one: you get to do what you love, raise your baby and earn a fortune.
Not everyone wants to sell out, start a family office and spend their days on a boat pondering what the purpose of life is and what they should do next.
Reaction to fragmede as I am rate limited:
You don’t have to travel full time.
And yes working at Dropbox is boring. Dropbox stores files. Things haven’t changed since 2009. There is not any product growth. They still store files. 95% of their daily operations is sales. That doesn’t sound enticing to me.
It might be difficult to believe, but some people enjoy running companies just as much as others enjoy traveling the world. Different people have different interests and goals in life. Neither is wrong.
Also, we can't just have people who retire as soon as they have enough money to travel around the world for the rest of their lives, we would only have inexperienced people in many important positions. 3 million is probably enough for that, if you don't demand too much luxury, and that's close to 1% of US families.
I'm pretty much sure it is not soul sucking if you are a CEO.
Seems rather soul sucking to me.
This feels like a judgement purely in financial numerology. Is bigger of necessity "better" for every founder?