I wanted to leave this be ... but I just couldn't.
I am not sure where this idea came about, but it's something I've heard a lot of, and it makes absolutely no sense. This is Econ 101.
Acme, Inc., has 100 shares of stock.
Bozo owns 60 shares of the stock (he is the majority owner).
Acme is currently trading at $10 a share. That means if someone wants to buy out Bozo, they would need to pay Bozo $600 for his shares.
What you are saying (and what others say in other circumstances) is that what Bozo really wants is to drive down the shares to $6 a share, so he can sell them for ... wait for it ... $360.
This is the part what someone posts the underwear gnomes and writes, "PROFIT!!!!!"
That's not how the stock market works. It's even less understandable when you have people like the Unity CEO, who is likely also receiving compensation partly in stock options, which only make money when the stock goes up. And in terms of stock that he holds outright, of course he wants the highest possible value for it.
Driving the stock price down only helps potential buyers, not the seller. I truly don't understand why this idea has taken hold. Again, these are publicly traded companies, which means that at any given time the shares are freely transferable at the price point they are trading.
(For reference, according to public documents, Unity's President and CEO hold approximately 3.2 million shares. That is less than 1% of the approximately 383 million shares outstanding as of summer 2023).