Artem Lyashanov and bill_line: Why Founders Don’t Always Stay CEO

Fintech companies scale faster than most industries. Sometimes, they scale faster than their founders.

The person who builds a product from scratch is not always the same person who can scale it to millions of users, complex operations, and international markets. For founders, admitting that out loud is rarely easy.

Artem Lyashanov, founder of bill_line, a technical operator for payment systems, and an advisor to international fintech projects, believes the strongest form of commitment to a company is doing what is right for its growth — even when that means changing your own role.

We spoke with him about why company growth sometimes requires a leadership shift, when a founder should step aside, and when staying in place may still be the right call.

“Sometimes the strongest decision is to admit that the company needs a different kind of leader,” says Artem Lyashanov.

Research by Harvard Business School professor Noam Wasserman shows that four out of five founders eventually leave the CEO role under investor pressure. By the third round of funding, most startups are no longer led by their founders.

Only 25% of founders remain CEO through an IPO. At the same time, research from the University of North Carolina points to an interesting paradox: founder-led companies often receive higher valuations at IPO, but that advantage tends to disappear within three years.

“Building a startup and scaling a mature company require very different skills,” Lyashanov explains. “A founder usually thinks in terms of product, speed, and opportunity. The CEO of a mature company has to think in terms of process, structure, and operational efficiency.”

There is no single right model for leadership transition. Global business history shows very different scenarios — and each one offers a different lesson.

In 1985, Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple after a conflict with the board. He spent the next 12 years outside the company, founded NeXT, went through setbacks, and learned hard management lessons. When Apple bought NeXT in 1997 and Jobs returned, the company was close to bankruptcy. He took a $1 annual salary and rebuilt Apple into one of the most influential companies in the world.

His product vision turned out to be irreplaceable. But this time, he had learned how to run a company — not just create one.

Travis Kalanick’s story at Uber followed a very different path. In June 2017, he stepped down as CEO after a series of scandals involving workplace culture, legal issues, and investor pressure. Five major investors sent a letter titled “Moving Uber Forward,” demanding his resignation. Kalanick agreed.

It became a classic case of a founder’s personality becoming a risk to the company itself.

A founder’s exit can also be planned and voluntary. In 2021, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey stepped down as CEO by choice. His message was clear: a company that depends too heavily on one person is vulnerable. He believed Twitter was ready to move forward without its founder at the center.

The market read the decision as a sign of maturity.

Bill Gates took another route. He stepped down as Microsoft CEO in 2000, handed over operational leadership, and gradually moved away from day-to-day management. He later applied his entrepreneurial thinking to philanthropy through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

These examples show the same thing: leaving the CEO role does not mean losing influence. In many cases, it means moving into a role where the founder can create more value.

The Ukrainian Context: From Operational Control to Strategic Influence

Ukraine is also seeing more examples of conscious leadership transition.

In 2026, Nazar Gulyk, founder of Empat Tech, passed the CEO role to Ihor Repeta after realizing that more complex projects required a different management model.

Oleksandr Suvorov, founder of PET Technologies, stepped away from operational processes after 20 years of running the company. That move required a full redesign of the company’s management system and a careful review of how the new model worked in practice.

Artem Lyashanov has gone through a similar evolution.

After building bill_line, a technical operator for payment systems with PCI DSS Level 1 certification, he moved from operational management into consulting for international fintech projects across the EU, the United States, Canada, and Latin America.

The regulatory expertise he developed while building bill_line became the foundation for a new role: helping other founders navigate the early stages of fintech growth, where mistakes can be especially expensive.

For fintech founders, this is often the real challenge. Growth is not only about product-market fit. It is also about regulation, payment infrastructure, compliance, risk management, and operational discipline. At a certain stage, the founder’s main value may no longer be in controlling every process. It may be in seeing risks earlier than others and helping the company make better strategic decisions.

When Should a Founder Step Aside?

According to Lyashanov, the first warning sign is operational chaos during scaling.

A company with 50 people and a company with 500 people are not the same organism. They need different systems, different decision-making processes, and a different leadership rhythm. If the founder cannot build predictable operations, it may be time to bring in someone with the right management skill set.

The second signal is growing tension with investors.

In most cases, CEO transitions are initiated by the board, not the founder. This usually happens when investors feel that the company has outgrown its current leadership model and needs more structure, discipline, or market credibility.

The third signal is loss of strategic focus.

“When a founder spends 80% of their time on operational issues, they stop creating their highest value,” says Lyashanov.

This is especially relevant in fintech, where founders often need to think several steps ahead: regulation, partnerships, market entry, payment infrastructure, and cross-border expansion. If the founder is trapped in day-to-day management, the company may lose the strategic vision that made it strong in the first place.

But replacing a founder is not always the right move.

There are cases where a leadership change can damage the company. The first is when the product depends on deep technical expertise that only the founder truly understands. The second is when the company culture is closely tied to the founder’s personality and values. The third is when the founder is capable of evolving faster than the company itself.

In those cases, the better decision may not be replacement. It may be transformation.

Artem Lyashanov: Evolution Is Stronger Than Control

A founder’s role does not end when they stop being CEO. It changes.

The experience of building a company, understanding the market, navigating regulation, and solving complex problems does not disappear with a title. These assets can be applied in different ways: operational leadership, strategic consulting, investment, mentoring, or product development.

“The value of a founder is not in the CEO title,” says Artem Lyashanov. “It is in the ability to see opportunities, build products, and solve difficult problems. Those skills can be used in different roles. Sometimes that means operations. Sometimes it means strategic consulting. Sometimes it means investing.”

His own path reflects that logic.

Lyashanov moved from building bill_line as a local technical operator for payment systems to advising fintech projects internationally. For founders, investors, and fintech teams, this shift sends a clear message: stepping away from operational control does not mean stepping away from impact.

In mature companies, control is not always the highest form of leadership.

Sometimes, the strongest founder is the one who knows when to let go — and still keeps building.