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

231–240 of 278 posts

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

#231

Post by paul_f »

Justsignedup wrote: post #62
skrebbel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Critical. I have been part of multiple startups that have fantastic work/life balance. In one case I'd get meetings like "hey, I know you have a kid and all, but we're hitting a deadline soon. Just to let you know next week you're probably gonna have to put in extra hours. But I didn't want to sneak it on you. Let me know if there are any days you can't work extra so I can make sure the other days are covered by some…

Love this! Curious, is this a California company or somewhere in flyover country? (I see this style often in Texas companies)

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

#232

Post by jbay808 »

eximius wrote: post #220

This thread has reminded me of a concept (whose term I am struggling and failing to remember) that is as important, if not more, than what is traditionally thought of as the cap table. In the case of a sale, investors with would get their money back (possibly at an inflated ratio) before the rest of the money from the sale is distributed via equity. This is important because it means that even if you get favorable st…

I believe those are the "preferred shares" that the founder in the article declined to offer to the investor protagonist.

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

#233

Post by giantg2 »

kristopolous wrote: post #225
giantg2 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how management tells us to think outside the box and then admonishes us when we do and they don't like it.

Defending and perpetuating the power structure is what institution building is. If you won't be a steward of the dominant institutions, then you're not an extension of its power, your a transgressor to it. "Thinking outside the box" is cute virtue signalling but honestly that's what gets you kicked to the curb. It will always be that way for any established entity because that act is fundamentally one of disestablish…

Completely agree. The only way to get power or money is to have the people who have power or money want give you some. The owner/leader of a company will only give power to others if it is necessary and they are sufficiently similar to themself.

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

#234

Post by icedchai »

ahelwer wrote: post #227
icedchai wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can diversify by investing in public markets, where you have actual liquidity. I've made more off of the Facebook stock I bought after the IPO than I have from any of the startups I worked for. One did have a "successful" exit, meaning the returns were positive, though nothing to write home about. I would've been better investing that money into Apple or AMD. All the people complaining about their worthless stock…

The whole thesis of VC funds is to invest in many companies and have a few home runs drive returns. VC-backed companies failing is just the cost of doing business in a random extremistan world. For programmers it's as you say - either nothing, or at best "nothing to write home about". Unless you win the lottery.

Yep, I understand. I've worked for 5 startups in roughly 20 years. Only one had any real success, resulting in that "okay" outcome. I have more than enough capital to meet accredited investor status, and wouldn't invest in a private company again. (I have in the past and know I'll never see that money again.)

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

#235

Post by eximius »

plasma wrote: post #224
eximius wrote: post #220

This thread has reminded me of a concept (whose term I am struggling and failing to remember) that is as important, if not more, than what is traditionally thought of as the cap table. In the case of a sale, investors with would get their money back (possibly at an inflated ratio) before the rest of the money from the sale is distributed via equity. This is important because it means that even if you get favorable st…

Liquidation preference

Ah, yes, I think it was this. The startup I left had unfavorable liquidation preference seniority for employees (standard) but most of the investors had a liquidation multiplier.

https://angel.co/blog/liquidation-preference-your-equity-cou...

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

#236

Post by htrp »

wskinner wrote: post #185

For those in the comments who are confused about how various equity compensation schemes work, the best guide I'm aware of is https://www.holloway.com/g/equity-compensation/about . It covers all the common types - RSUs, NSOs, ISOs, 83b elections, and more.

This is a great resource.

Only annoying thing is the constant prompt to login with your social accounts.

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

#237

Post by mediaman »

acwan93 wrote: post #149
bquinlan wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I could be a cog in a giant corporate machine, or I can have a measurable impact where I work. I think that point can support working for either a big company or a small company depending on what type of impact you are looking for. I've worked for startups in the past and have had a huge impact on the startup but almost no impact on the outside world because the startups just weren't tackling very visible problems.…

I agree with this mentality. I was at a FAANG company as well, and some of the projects I worked on had a small impact on the company but a huge impact on a certain group. 4% of a billion users is the total population of Canada. Now that I'm at a startup, I'm making a huge impact on the startup, but it's having very little impact on the outside world and the industry. I guess the hope is that one day the startup will…

It's an interesting choice.

Which do you prefer?

I'd prefer having an impact on the company versus an impact on a large number of users, because I would experience the impact on the company every day, but at the big company, the feeling of satisfaction from running into random people who have used what I made would still be somewhat infrequent.

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

#238

Post by hitekker »

paul_f wrote: post #230
high_derivative wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'have practically zero politics' tingles my bs-meter. How would you know how your employees feel about this? There is always politics. Of course not for the ones who cannot be promoted further, but for everyone else. My boss not acknowledging the existence of politics would be a red flag to me.

I have worked in plenty of places where there is little drama. These are usually run by well respected, competent managers who are also transparent. If you always run into office politics, the problem could possibly be you.

By the same token, if you don't notice anyone suffering around you, the problem is probably you.

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

#239

Post by JumpCrisscross »

lkbm wrote: post #66
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…

Main reason: it's more fun. I could be a cog in a giant corporate machine, or I can have a measurable impact where I work. I can stay in my lane and do my specific job tasks, or I can run around putting out fires and helping wherever help is needed. I mindlessly build the specific design product handed me, or I can guide my own work in accordance to the needs of our customers and the business. I can follow policy and…

> it's more fun

I recommend everyone spend some part of their career in a 1 to 20-person shop, a 20 to 200-person shop and a 2,000+ person shop. (I don’t have experience in 200 to 2,000.) They are vastly different work environments.

I thought I was a 1 to 20 guy; I’m not. I want enough structure to let me specialise without letting bureaucracy get in the way. Twenty to ~two hundred.

Start-ups are fun, but they’re also stressful. If you get unlucky, they can also leave you materially less wealthy than you could have been with more stability.

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

#240

Post by dinht »

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…

Certainly you can get a considerable amount of salary, depending on your angle of working in a startup. In the recent career changes, I often look at 1-2 years old start-up where tech side has been rather stagnant. My angle is clear -> getting stuffs done, move the tech forward and make sure it is aligned with the company's direction

But this is not enough for founders to have a peace of mind regarding your commitment.

- If you have already built a reputation, then that's enough for you to argue for a market rate salary.

- Else you would need to trade for some equity.

What are you getting out of this compared to a corp job:

- The work is likely more interesting.

- Away from corporate landscape (if that's not your thing)

- Gaining experience in new domain, doing thing in new ways.

Post reply on HN