The Exit Illusion

A narrative takedown of start-up “exits” — acquihires, soft landings, VC-arranged sales. Who actually wins, who loses, and what gets buried in the press release.

It usually begins with a press release.

A smiling photograph, if one is available, or at the very least a neat paragraph of corporate language announcing a “strategic acquisition” or a “team transition.” The industry press recycles it within the hour, tech Twitter posts congratulations, and LinkedIn erupts with platitudes about “synergies” and “new chapters.”

To the casual reader, it looks like another start-up has made it — an ending wrapped in the promise of a new beginning.

But pull at the thread of language and the fabric unravels quickly. “Acquihire” is rarely a reward; it is a euphemism for liquidation dressed in Sunday clothes. A “soft landing” is not a gentle descent but a crash softened by the cushioning of PR. Even the phrase “asset sale” suggests the careful transfer of valuable machinery — when in practice, it may amount to a fire sale of code, domains, or desks.

Exits are supposed to be the punctuation marks of entrepreneurship: a bold exclamation point at the end of years of work. Instead, many of today’s exits function like ellipses — a slow fade into nothingness, leaving ambiguity where there should be clarity. Everyone knows this, yet we maintain the charade.

Why?

Because exits are the last myth holding the start-up story together. Investors can protect their track record, founders can preserve their reputations, employees can cling to the hope that their résumés will look shinier. And the ecosystem, ever hungry for headlines, is happy to keep pretending.

In truth, very few of these exits are genuine acquisitions in which products, customers, and value are absorbed into a larger whole. More often they are polite cover-ups for collapse, where the only true winners are the ones who control the narrative. What gets lost is everything else: the broken promises to employees, the distortion of what counts as success, and the dangerous recycling of illusion into aspiration for the next generation.

The exit, once the reward, has become a performance. And like all theatre, the applause hides the stagehands sweeping away the wreckage behind the curtain.

In this issue of The Founder's Brew, we dissect the illusion of start-up exits. Behind the headlines of “strategic acquisitions” and “team transitions” lies a different reality: investors protecting optics, founders saving face, and employees left in the dark. This essay traces how the language of exits is engineered, who truly benefits from them, and why honesty about endings may be the most radical — and responsible — act in today’s start-up world.

---

More posts from this series:

The Silent Buyback

The Boardroom Theatre

The Secondary Veil

---

🚀 Today’s Issue at a Glance

• The Language of Disguise

• The Investor’s Clean-Up Job

• The Founder’s Mask

• The Employee Mirage

• The Public Ledger of Illusions

Welcome to The Founder’s Brew, 🔒subscribers-only🔒 offering by The Percolator dedicated to entrepreneurs & start-up enthusiast. Each week we share tools, resources and insights to help you grow in your founder journey.

🚀

Now, you can Upgrade your Subscription for Free when you Invite your Friends to Subscribe to The Percolator

The mythology of the start-up exit has been carefully built over decades. It is the story every founder grows up with: build ambitiously, scale relentlessly, and one day either ring the bell at an IPO or shake hands with an acquiring giant. These exits were once seen as tangible, final outcomes. They represented not just financial reward but also validation that what was built mattered — to customers, to markets, and to history.

But the reality has shifted.

Today’s start-up landscape is crowded with half-lived ventures, capital-heavy experiments, and teams that burn out faster than they break through. The “exit” has become less about a company finding a lasting home and more about investors, founders, and acquirers finding ways to manage optics. Acquihires, “team transitions,” and asset purchases now constitute a significant portion of what we still dare to call exits.

This matters because exits are not merely private outcomes. They are public signals, shaping how founders imagine possibility, how employees commit their labour, and how investors sell the next fund.

When a failure is reframed as an acquisition, the illusion ripples outward. Employees assume equity worked as intended, when in reality it often expired worthless. Founders elsewhere imagine that every startup has a parachute, when in practice most are left on the tarmac. And new capital flows into distorted expectations, believing the system has fewer losses than it really does.

The language that papers over collapse — “talent-led integration,” “soft landing,” “strategic acquisition” — isn’t accidental. It is designed. Every word is chosen to maintain dignity where truth would sting. Rarely do the announcements disclose who got paid what, whose shares vanished, or whose careers were derailed. That information is left out of the press release because the exit story is not about truth; it is about theatre.

What’s at stake is not just semantic precision but the moral architecture of entrepreneurship. If exits are allowed to be illusions, then accountability erodes. The story of innovation becomes one where failure is never admitted, only rewritten. That may comfort egos and preserve relationships, but it corrodes the foundation of trust on which entrepreneurial ecosystems claim to rest.

Which raises the uncomfortable but necessary question: what do we really mean when we say a company “exited”?