The reality is that the board has the votes to remove Matt as CEO and Matt has enough shares that if the board is decided by simple 1 vote per share then he can replace them but without knowing the agreements with its investors and shareholders we don’t know if the boards mechanisms actually allow him to replace all the members. Since the company is privately traded, these aren’t published anywhere, so it’s unknowable for those of us in the peanut gallery (unless it eventually goes to court, which is likely unless those agreements are decisive).
Matt can flex his 84% voting power, but proxies can be clawed back, at which point he'll be left with 30% voting power (that being the fraction he owns outright). At worst, that is, since it would take a united front of shareholders and years of messy litigation. I think most investors would rather just cut their losses and sell their position.
You would have to imagine that a big shareholder being able to neutralize ordinary functions of the board is outside, at a minimum, the spirit of that intended process. Though I'm sure that can be argued sixteen different directions.
If you’re inclined to see everything as a diversion and all criticism as inorganic, then I think it’s better to admit you just want someone to confirm your views and you’re not really looking to be convinced, as much as you phrased your question that way
