Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YC and Founders Pledge

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: YC and Founders Pledge

#71

Post by tptacek »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #66
imbenclifford wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is equivalent to saying that if a founder decides she will buy a house if she exits, that she is denying employees of equity. Have I missed the point?

I know others already hit on it but since you replied to me: I would say those are not equivalent. With buying a house on exit you're planning on taking your money and doing something personal with it. When you're giving it to charity it's money you didn't need . If you didn't need the money, why wouldn't it go to the first employees (or even later employees) in the form of equity since they helped build the company?…

It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it.

I feel like you could not have fully thought this statement through.

Re: YC and Founders Pledge

#72

Post by loeg »

mkagenius wrote: post #6
trevyn wrote: post #3

Are we to take away from this that founder charitable giving is more important than employee equity compensation in YC's eyes? Wouldn't make me want to work at a YC company.

> charitable giving is more important than employee equity compensation You are probably assuming that employees are definitely under compensated.. what about the case when founder owns only 5% and still wants to donate a part..

> You are probably assuming that employees are definitely under compensated

This is a reasonable assumption about startups.

Re: YC and Founders Pledge

#73

Post by BinaryIdiot »

tptacek wrote: post #71
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know others already hit on it but since you replied to me: I would say those are not equivalent. With buying a house on exit you're planning on taking your money and doing something personal with it. When you're giving it to charity it's money you didn't need . If you didn't need the money, why wouldn't it go to the first employees (or even later employees) in the form of equity since they helped build the company?…

It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it. I feel like you could not have fully thought thi…

> It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it. > I feel like you could not have fully thought this statement through.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you referring to myself being white, a male, my industry, the area in which I live? Why would my post, because of my race, gender, industry, area or country, make it disturbing whereas it may not have been otherwise? Where did I say other developers should "get dibs on" another founder's equity? Who mentioned "worthy charitable cause"? There are so few but I get the general impression you chose your words to try to make my comments appear worse than what they are.

When you give to charity you give money you do not need, correct? So when you pledge X percentage of your equity to charity while, at the same time, paying less than the average salary for your workers who are hoping to use their equity as another way of compensation should everything go well, you're saying that because it goes to charity and because of their demographics, everyone should feel fine?

I only talked about the emotions of such a decision. If someone tells you that they don't need a certain amount of money that they only made because of your and your team's hard work and you're being underpaid, you don't think you deserve to feel slighted? Because that's exactly what happens.

Next time, instead of trying to make me look like a monster for talking about feelings, how about we try to understand each other's view point and talk this out?

Re: YC and Founders Pledge

#74

Post by loeg »

gfosco wrote: post #36

There wasn't anything stopping founders from donating to charity before, or from claiming they will in the future, so what does this accomplish other than putting a procedure in place for shameless virtue signaling? Giving to charity is powerful. Talking about giving to charity or telling people you will conditionally give to charity in the future, is transparently self-serving.

Reducing the friction in donating a complicated asset is useful.

Re: YC and Founders Pledge

#75

Post by tptacek »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #73
tptacek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it. I feel like you could not have fully thought thi…

> It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it. > I feel like you could not have fully thought…

I don't think you're a monster; I meant what I said. You seem to be proposing not only that it's a better idea to give money to software developers than to charities, but that founders who give money to charities are somehow violating some norm or ethic --- after all, any dollar they donate to charity is a dollar that could have gone to a developer on their team.

I totally believe that's not what you're saying, but I'm struggling to find a logic in your argument that doesn't lead there. Help me out!

Re: YC and Founders Pledge

#76

Post by drpancake »

protomyth wrote: post #51

Out of curiosity why are religious charities banned? https://founderspledge.com/faq

It would be quite amusing if a founder pledged to the Church of Scientology. I still sometimes forget that they actually do have tax-exempt status.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology#Classifi...

Re: YC and Founders Pledge

#77

Post by colinsidoti »

I really like the idea of a pledge for founders but worry about the particular features available here.

The biggest red flag for me is that Founder's Pledge is touted as "completely free," but makes no mention of investment options being available for your assets.

So, while it may not be deducting an administrative fee, keeping your charitable assets with them is akin to leaving your 401(k) assets in cash, which will normally result in you having less funds to donate than if you had used a traditional Donor Advised Fund.

Unless a founder plans on distributing all of their charitable assets immediately (which I believe is atypical), I hope Founder's Pledge discloses that it may be in their best interest to transfer their funds to a Fidelity Charitable or Schwab Charitable DAF where assets can grow.

Re: YC and Founders Pledge

#78

Post by whack »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #73
tptacek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it. I feel like you could not have fully thought thi…

> It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it. > I feel like you could not have fully thought…

Your argument is premised on the assumption that startup employees are being underpaid. If they are really being underpaid, why did they agree to join the startup in the first place? Why not pursue other career options where they won't be underpaid? We aren't talking about big companies like Google or Amazon, which have tremendous negotiating power; we're talking about startups, which by definition, possess little market power through which to distort wages. The idea that someone can point to a very competitive marketplace, and unilaterally declare that the goods are being "undervalued", goes against all free-market/capitalist principles.

Re: YC and Founders Pledge

#79

Post by [deleted] »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #73
tptacek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it. I feel like you could not have fully thought thi…

> It's kind of disturbing to see (what I presume to be) a member of one of the best compensated demographics in one of the richest countries in the world suggest that while it's OK for a cashed-out founder to buy houses with their money (at least that's personal), before any of that money goes to a worthy charitable cause, other software developers should get dibs on it. > I feel like you could not have fully thought…

[deleted]

Re: YC and Founders Pledge

#80

Post by pjscott »

33a wrote: post #11

Why not donate it to your employees?

If I had to make a list of people whose lives would be most improved by some extra money, engineers in Silicon Valley would probably not be at the very top of the page.
Post reply on HN