However, within four weeks, Ramamurthy decided to terminate his employment due to concerns over performance and productivity.

According to Ramamurthy, the developer initially attributed slow progress to a "messy" codebase. Trusting this explanation at first, the founder later grew skeptical about the pace of work. To better understand the situation, he subscribed to an AI coding tool and attempted to rebuild parts of the product himself-despite having no formal technical background.

He claimed that he was able to recreate a significant portion of the product within four days using AI assistance. This raised doubts in his mind about the developer's output. "If I could do that with no engineering background, what exactly was he doing?" he wrote.

Following this, Ramamurthy asked the developer to match at least half of his speed using the same AI-based workflow. While the developer reportedly showed some progress initially, the second day saw no measurable output, with the employee citing basic blockers.

The situation escalated during a follow-up call, where Ramamurthy alleged that the developer first claimed tasks were completed but later admitted that no work had been finished. This, according to the founder, led to an "easy but frustrating" decision to let the employee go.

He stated that as a bootstrapped founder, he could not afford to pay someone who was "barely working." After the termination, he revoked the developer's access to company systems. He also noted that the developer later messaged him suggesting they part ways, which he said made the process easier.

Reflecting on the experience, Ramamurthy acknowledged that he had overlooked early warning signs such as slow execution and inconsistencies. He concluded his post with a takeaway: if a non-technical founder is outperforming a developer, it signals a deeper issue.

However, the post drew sharp criticism from the online community. Many users questioned both his leadership approach and his reliance on AI as a benchmark for productivity.

Some argued that his comments reflected a lack of understanding of software development complexities, including debugging, scalability, and long-term maintenance. Others warned that over-reliance on AI-generated code could lead to technical debt, requiring costly fixes in the future.

A few commenters also criticized the tone of the post, suggesting it came across as self-congratulatory rather than reflective. Others even joked that the situation appeared reversed-that the developer had effectively "fired the founder" by choosing to walk away.

The incident has since fueled broader discussions around the role of AI in software development, workplace expectations, and the responsibilities of startup founders in managing teams effectively.