There are two reasons I see for doing something like that:

- The person is dealing with business-to-business transactions and their position should indicate that they're able to make decisions for the company.

- They were selected specifically for an executive role, rather than simply being a buddy of one of the guys starting things. At lot of startups are built that way.

You can be a founder and also a position such as CTO and CEO, based on what you are contributing work-wise.

Shrug - Yeah, I know - I'm probably just being a grump, but it seems ostentatious to me.

It's critical for dealing with business people outside the startup world. It's hard to get them to take you seriously unless you're the CxO of something. That's why we use the titles at jtv anyway.

Ok - Probably just my experience - might just be a nomenclature difference between the US and UK/Aus/etc.

I assigned myself the title of UFO - Ultra-Freaky Officer - at one company.

Its the legal title if your incorporated.

I don't believe that's true. I believe that you have to have a President, but not a CxO.

Is that that case in the US?

I've had companies in other jurisdictions where this isn't the case - UK/Aus tend to use CxO for public companies. Private/limited companies tend to have Managing Directors, General Managers, Presidents, etc.