For a company that produced negative income, absolutely absurd. Why do investors put up with this? Is there truly no oversight? There is no way he provides value close to his compensation.
He is the co-founder, and he kept the company moving after a huge backlash against the previous CEO. He made some controversial (and bold) decisions like increasing the API price to block out third-party apps, but it seems to work? So yes, he somewhat deserves that compensation.
They could have paid me $10m, given everyone a $50k bonus for the crap, and been profitable.
CEO remuneration is out of control when somebody can perform such a beige list of acts and be treated like the Messiah. Mozilla is in the same boat. Such poor value for money.
It is ridiculous, but devil's advocate: let's say the board told you that you needed to make very unpopular decisions and will be hated by millions of people for the favor.