I had expected from the title to see an article explaining why there don't tend to be a lot of famous computer programmers. I was completely unprepared to read a complaint from a guy who thinks he should be famous, yet isn't treated with the deference he thinks he deserves.
Yikes! I had to stop after 3 paragraphs.
I interpret that the author's fame doesn't help the author at all and that fame is a pointless asset.
Fame is defined by people knowing who you are, yet this guy's issue is that nobody knows who he is. QED, he's not famous.
Maybe this is also true for web-famous entrepreneurs? Anyone ever start a somewhat well-known company that folded and you had to go work for someone else? Did you still have to earn respect from scratch at the new company?
Now I think I understand what I've wanted isn't possible. There is no way to prove yourself once-and-for-all. The only solution is to solve the money problem once-and-for-all, and then you never have to bother with proving yourself at a new company again.
You will still need to prove yourself at a new company if you ever want to produce something again. Life is long; early retirement can be REALLY REALLY long. At some point, you have to do something that you will find meaningful, however rich you are. At that point, you'll have this 'prove yourself' thing coming right back at you.
It's easier if you have a track-record of success, but 'proving yourself' is something that everyone is doing, constantly, with their loved ones, their workmates, in a way, even their local barrista.
If you want to work with people, you will need to earn their respect, admiration and trust. Being rich eases that path (for some), but it doesn't take away that fundamental truth.
Sadly, programming by itself will very rarely make you financially independent, especially if you're giving away your code.