The board supported him being ousted as CEO [1].

He can have a seat at the table, but the table is largely comprised of people who wanted him out, and can continue to make decisions he disapproves of.

This isn't a case of Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Google, or Bill Gates at Microsoft, where the founder is well-respected, left of their own will, and still maintains an influence in a meaningful capacity.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-ceo/uber-ceo-travis-...

You can still want to maintain influence without having personal/financial exposure to the consequences.

But that sends a wickedly powerful statement to the market that you as a remaining board member would not hold the shares of the company you oversee... That's the discussion here.

There are a lot of reasons a board member might reduce their stake in the company. Lack of belief in the company's strategy is a common reason, especially when boardroom drama is involved. I don't think investors will read anything into it other than Kalanick is rebalancing the risk profile of his portfolio now that he no longer has control of Uber.

Activist investors play this game all the time so it says nothing about the strategy one way or another, just that the appetite for risk is higher the more control you have.

Of all the negative signals Uber sends, this is the one the market is going to take issue with?

Touché! But cult-like stocks have a stronger relation than usual to their founder(s)' actions.

Stock price doesn't seem to notice FWIW:

https://i.imgur.com/Z8XaO2P.png