Transcript excerpt from a conversation with Naval Ravikant about founders retaining control of their companies. Naval emphasizes that good founders are often replaced by poor CEOs, and that investors should only back founders they can support until the founder is ready to give control up; he frames backing as a moral compact tied to perseverance.
What's the worst story, not about you, that you heard ever about Lucille?
I haven't really thought about ranked that way.
What's the one that comes to your mind?
Yeah, there's plenty where you see good founders getting replaced by sort of bozo CEOs. That's probably like the number one. That is it I have entrepreneurs commiserate about. I really feel like as an investor, if you can't back the founder until the founder is ready to give it up, then you probably shouldn't be backing that founder. That's the personal opinion.
I kind of like that. Yeah. And if the founder feels they still have to keep going, in a way, it's their right.
Yeah. If you feel that the best businesses are built by the people who stick it out, who persevere, then you only want to back the people who really will persevere. And then when you back them, you sort of make the moral compact with them.
I'm going to back you.
Correct through.
Good times and bad.
Also, the smart entrepreneurs now are no longer giving the VCs the power to fire them. That power is going away. Adventure Hacks Our tagline was evaluation is temporary, control is forever. And it was all about basically, don't fixate so much on the other pieces. Just make sure you keep control. And if you have control, then it's your company. And the day you lose control, you're no longer an entrepreneur, you're an employee.