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

If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

software.rajivprab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 278 posts

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#41

Post by skrebbel »

seibelj wrote: post #3

Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…

Frankly I'm getting tired of this drum HN keeps beating about startups not offering a good work/life balance. Some startups don't, true. Some FAANGs don't either, what's the difference?

I know plenty of startups that have a sane working culture as a key point of differentiation in the job market.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#42

Post by bb88 »

maps7 wrote: post #27
seibelj wrote: post #3

Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…

I would like to work for a startup as a way to move/improve my stack but looking at some startup job postings show that they want Googler-tier devs with decades of experience while paying nothing

I would recommend going the consulting/contracting route.

Mostly because you get to see how different companies approach problems. When you move from company to company you take the best ideas forward.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#43

Post by colinrand »

A few things I have noticed missing from discussion of why/why not to join a start up is prestige and lineage. Early engineers from start ups that get traction carry an aura of prestige (warranted or not is a separate question) that they were witness to 'something special' that happened.

Second is lineage. Like it or not, cohorts of engineers often stick together and create informal networks that help populate their careers with better opportunities in the future. Going through the crucible with a team is a great way to form bonds that can last decades.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#44

Post by nogabebop23 »

kristopolous wrote: post #15
seibelj wrote: post #3

Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…

For me I'm far too naturally transgressive to work at a large company. I really wish I could, life would be easier, less work, less stress, pay better... None of them will take me so I keep help building and (sometimes) exiting startups. It's really exhausting. 20 years of this... I wish more companies would value those who "challenge the book" instead of "follow the book" or that I could find a way to obediently fol…

>> those who "challenge the book" instead of "follow the book"

This is a valid position and one I can identify with personally, but as I've gotten more emotionally mature over time find it's a little more subtle. You need to include your risk propensity and methodology into the calculation. Even within established companies roles, teams and individual situations are going to be vastly different. Are you willing to take bet-your-career risks? Have you earned some shared vulnerability with the people you want to change? Do you truly care about them and your company? I've learned these are all necessary if not sufficient regardless of the corporate landscape.

I believe there is a third way where you work within the system to affect meaningful change (or bring it down from the inside, depending on how radical your viewpoint). I've come to the realization that small minorities want either dramatic change or none at all; the vast majority are just apathetic, which is your biggest enemy. Start-ups likely skew towards the big change camp. You can make a difference in the former environment but it is exhausting and risks turning you apathetic as well.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#45

Post by alecbenzer »

brd529 wrote: post #8

Bravo bravo bravo! This piece neatly encapsulates all the problems with ISOs. The biggest one is mentioned at the beginning - information asymmetry. I don’t really understand why most companies, especially small ones less than 100 people, can’t be transparent about their cap table with employees. I do think the culture around 90 day exercise Windows is changing. Here is a list of companies with extended windows [1].…

AFAIK the 90 day thing was more of a legal thing than something the companies themselves wanted to enforce?

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#46

Post by eli »

seibelj wrote: post #20
sky_rw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the size of the startup at the time you join, I found it fairly easy to negotiate an extension to the exercise window. Likely because so few people even bring it up.

There was 0% chance of that occurring as the CEO was a total shark. You would be shocked at how much of the cap table he retained vs. all the crazy funding shenanigans that happened. Very astute player of the game, he did very well. I will invest in his future companies but never work for him again.

Why is it ok to fund that behavior if it’s victimizing people?

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#47

Post by marcinzm »

seibelj wrote: post #3

Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…

> - Making a lot of money in salary.

Startups pay more in salary than non-tech non-finance companies do in total comp. Startups that are far enough along (pre-IPO Uber, Lyft, etc.) pay more than FAANG (the RSUs aren't liquid but you need to only wait a year or two).

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#48

Post by [deleted] »

marcinzm wrote: post #47
seibelj wrote: post #3

Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…

> - Making a lot of money in salary. Startups pay more in salary than non-tech non-finance companies do in total comp. Startups that are far enough along (pre-IPO Uber, Lyft, etc.) pay more than FAANG (the RSUs aren't liquid but you need to only wait a year or two).

[deleted]

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#49

Post by bjornsing »

This is the first “employee perspective” criticism of equity incentives I’ve read that makes perfect sense. Hat off for that! :)

Sadly in the country where I’ve founded startups (Sweden) the government mandates that the terms must be really shitty, or there are immediate tax consequences that somebody has to swallow.

Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees

#50

Post by novok »

thinkingkong wrote: post #24
seibelj wrote: post #3

Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…

The invalid reasons are all accurate. The only challenge is (almost?) everyone has a friend or colleague that worked at Slack or Uber and made stupendous amounts of money; far in advance of what they would get at a FAANG. It doesn't take into account luck & risk, but this kind of casual relationship with successful startups colours peoples expectations in a different light.

You might of made a stupendous amount of money if you worked at Uber 2014 or sooner. 2015 or later and you had a stock that was flat or worse for 5 years at this point.
Post reply on HN