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

Let’s talk about founder compensation

auren.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: Let’s talk about founder compensation

#81

Post by zepto »

cinquemb wrote: post #80
zepto wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one tells people how to build/run a company (and neither does the law in any particular jurisdiction, though they may set boundaries, This is essentially false. Corporate law, labor law, contract law, IP law, Tax law, and other legal disciplines do a lot to tell people how to build and run companies in every jurisdiction. If you don’t obey them, the state will impose liabilities by force. > just like the evm set…

> Corporate law, labor law, contract law, IP law, Tax law, and other legal disciplines do a lot to tell people how to build and run companies in every jurisdiction. If you fork uniswapv2 code and deploy it on chain, it enshrines a bunch of rules that essentially tell one how they can interact with it in the same way these laws do. People have to come up with these things, turn them in to law (or code), while also var…

> If you fork uniswapv2 code and deploy it on chain, it enshrines a bunch of rules that essentially tell one how they can interact with it in the same way these laws do.

Except with no actual enforcement mechanism. Can we stop saying these are equivalent? It’s just not true to pretend they are.

> If you are seriously interested, look here[0] (which is not a comprehensive list) [0] https://coopahtroopa.mirror.xyz/_EDyn4cs9tDoOxNGZLfKL7JjLo5r...

I am seriously interested and that’s the best answer so far, although from what I can see nothing breaks out of the financial derivatives space yet.

Re: Let’s talk about founder compensation

#82

Post by cinquemb »

zepto wrote: post #81
cinquemb wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corporate law, labor law, contract law, IP law, Tax law, and other legal disciplines do a lot to tell people how to build and run companies in every jurisdiction. If you fork uniswapv2 code and deploy it on chain, it enshrines a bunch of rules that essentially tell one how they can interact with it in the same way these laws do. People have to come up with these things, turn them in to law (or code), while also var…

> If you fork uniswapv2 code and deploy it on chain, it enshrines a bunch of rules that essentially tell one how they can interact with it in the same way these laws do. Except with no actual enforcement mechanism. Can we stop saying these are equivalent? It’s just not true to pretend they are. > If you are seriously interested, look here[0] (which is not a comprehensive list) [0] https://coopahtroopa.mirror.xyz/_EDy…

> Except with no actual enforcement mechanism.

Can we not ignore when any given enforcement mechanism associated typically with laws don't get executed when laws are broken by various actors? It's dishonest to pretend that traditional enforcement mechanisms are consistently used.

> although from what I can see nothing breaks out of the financial derivatives space yet.

You'd probably think that traditional non profit organization with a bank account is a financial derivative then if you research some of these Social DAO's and consider them being in the financial derivatives space.

Re: Let’s talk about founder compensation

#83

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

bradleyjg wrote: post #48
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve occasionally wondered if a policy of giving a 10-30% total raise over the first 3-ish years of an employees tenure would pay off: the value of the domain knowledge of someone who walks + the cost of recruiting and training a new hire is probably about $50k+ and, so, it might be less expensive in the long run to just match the raise someone could get by switching jobs.

You need to be careful with lockstep compensation plans. Your high, and even mid, employees will resent that low performers are getting the same as they are.

Most places I’ve worked had some concept of an “expected raise”: 1-3% a year. What I’m suggesting is making that a bit steeper and still paying performance-based raises on top of that. (I’m not sure what exact numbers make sense here: maybe a total of 10-20% expected raise over the salary offer + up to 10% based on performance?): the goal here is to save money by reducing the amount of domain and operational knowledge that just walks out the door.

Re: Let’s talk about founder compensation

#84

Post by zepto »

cinquemb wrote: post #82
zepto wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you fork uniswapv2 code and deploy it on chain, it enshrines a bunch of rules that essentially tell one how they can interact with it in the same way these laws do. Except with no actual enforcement mechanism. Can we stop saying these are equivalent? It’s just not true to pretend they are. > If you are seriously interested, look here[0] (which is not a comprehensive list) [0] https://coopahtroopa.mirror.xyz/_EDy…

> Except with no actual enforcement mechanism. Can we not ignore when any given enforcement mechanism associated typically with laws don't get executed when laws are broken by various actors? It's dishonest to pretend that traditional enforcement mechanisms are consistently used. > although from what I can see nothing breaks out of the financial derivatives space yet. You'd probably think that traditional non profit…

>> Except with no actual enforcement mechanism.

> Can we not ignore when any given enforcement mechanism associated typically with laws don't get executed when laws are broken by various actors?

> It's dishonest to pretend that traditional enforcement mechanisms are consistently used.

If you can find a quote indicating that I’m pretending that they are consistently used, then by all means call me dishonest.

What certainly is dishonest is to pretend that a mechanism that isn’t used consistently is equivalent to no mechanism at all.

> > although from what I can see nothing breaks out of the financial derivatives space yet.

> You'd probably think that traditional non profit organization with a bank account is a financial derivative then if you research some of these Social DAO's and consider them being in the financial derivatives space.

I looked. However I haven’t researched them all.

Perhaps you have a single good example you can point to? I assume you must think at least one of them is good.

Re: Let’s talk about founder compensation

#85

Post by glitchc »

k__ wrote: post #69
glitchc wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... how?

Zero trust transparency by design, for example.

Which part of the system is transparent? The smart contract?

Despite the name, a smart contract is just a software program. It is not a legal contract nor is it recognized as such in a court of law. As such it has no legal force.

When that changes, I’ll sit up and take notice. Until then, the crypto folks are just spinning their wheels pretending one is like the other.

Re: Let’s talk about founder compensation

#86

Post by cinquemb »

zepto wrote: post #84
cinquemb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except with no actual enforcement mechanism. Can we not ignore when any given enforcement mechanism associated typically with laws don't get executed when laws are broken by various actors? It's dishonest to pretend that traditional enforcement mechanisms are consistently used. > although from what I can see nothing breaks out of the financial derivatives space yet. You'd probably think that traditional non profit…

>> Except with no actual enforcement mechanism. > Can we not ignore when any given enforcement mechanism associated typically with laws don't get executed when laws are broken by various actors? > It's dishonest to pretend that traditional enforcement mechanisms are consistently used . If you can find a quote indicating that I’m pretending that they are consistently used, then by all means call me dishonest. What cer…

> What certainly is dishonest is to pretend that a mechanism that isn’t used consistently is equivalent to no mechanism at all.

Arguably, any instance where such enforcement mechanism fails to happen in response to an infraction in law, or fails be applied consistently to all actors, is a failure of said enforcement mechanism in totality (compared to evm where the contract will revert at runtime to the state before such method reverting execution if inputs + contract state go beyond the bounds defined within the contract and within the evm, every single time, for all actors as defined by the contract). Just because enforcement of the law sometimes works, does not remove its systemic flaws that might as well make it no real enforcement mechanism at all (especially so for some actors who can bypass meaningful enforcement pretty much any time they make an infraction).

Granted, you do not have to use anything defined by the evm. But others have and will continue to do so without any jurisdictions permission.

> Perhaps you have a single good example you can point to? I assume you must think at least one of them is good.

I think at this point, you have enough info to start to DYOR if you want to or not. I don't think there is much point in me spoon feeding you more stuff, and you can come to your own conclusions of ones "goodness" or "badness" and not rely on mine, and what ever you conclude, everyone else will not be bounded by such.

Re: Let’s talk about founder compensation

#87

Post by lumost »

ryanSrich wrote: post #73
echelon wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? How did Zuckerberg, Bezos, et al. keep so much?

Extreme outliers. You have a better shot at winning the lottery or being struck by lightning than ever having a company that resembles Facebook or Amazon in any way, including founder compensation and ownership. To answer the question though it’s all about leverage. You can’t go into a situation like VC funding without it. Leverage can almost be anything, but is commonly: - revenue - traction with customers - tractio…

The funny thing here is that it makes running a startup/working at a startup relatively pointless. On average it’s probably about equal difficulty to convince the right person at a FAANG to invest in a pitch as it is to raise a series A. Except your more or less guaranteed to make ~1-2 million over the course of 4 years and you have a good option to make more via promotion.

You Lone the opportunity to be your own boss and the possibility of extreme upside. But it sounds like VCs are taking that away as well.

I wonder if any VCs have added options into the deal to increase founder equity later if company performance dramatically outperforms expectations.

Re: Let’s talk about founder compensation

#88

Post by ryanSrich »

lumost wrote: post #87
ryanSrich wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extreme outliers. You have a better shot at winning the lottery or being struck by lightning than ever having a company that resembles Facebook or Amazon in any way, including founder compensation and ownership. To answer the question though it’s all about leverage. You can’t go into a situation like VC funding without it. Leverage can almost be anything, but is commonly: - revenue - traction with customers - tractio…

The funny thing here is that it makes running a startup/working at a startup relatively pointless. On average it’s probably about equal difficulty to convince the right person at a FAANG to invest in a pitch as it is to raise a series A. Except your more or less guaranteed to make ~1-2 million over the course of 4 years and you have a good option to make more via promotion. You Lone the opportunity to be your own bos…

The overlap between would-be successful founders and people that can not only pass the interview exams, but function within a FAANG is probably very slim.

You need high conformity and extreme inside the box thinking to thrive in FAANG. Conversely, you need essentially the opposite set of traits to be a successful founder.

Re: Let’s talk about founder compensation

#89

Post by zepto »

cinquemb wrote: post #86
zepto wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Except with no actual enforcement mechanism. > Can we not ignore when any given enforcement mechanism associated typically with laws don't get executed when laws are broken by various actors? > It's dishonest to pretend that traditional enforcement mechanisms are consistently used . If you can find a quote indicating that I’m pretending that they are consistently used, then by all means call me dishonest. What cer…

> What certainly is dishonest is to pretend that a mechanism that isn’t used consistently is equivalent to no mechanism at all. Arguably, any instance where such enforcement mechanism fails to happen in response to an infraction in law, or fails be applied consistently to all actors, is a failure of said enforcement mechanism in totality (compared to evm where the contract will revert at runtime to the state before s…

> Arguably, any instance where such enforcement mechanism fails to happen in response to an infraction in law, or fails be applied consistently to all actors, is a failure of said enforcement mechanism in totality

No, that’s not ‘arguable’. It’s ridiculous and obviously wrong.

> there is much point in me spoon feeding you more stuff

Or, far more likely, you simply can’t actually produce a good example.

Given that you could simultaneously prove me wrong and inform other people by doing so, I think it’s clear this is just bluster.

Re: Let’s talk about founder compensation

#90

Post by vmception »

omeze wrote: post #66
vmception wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about a DAO that only transacts in DAI and has no token representation of its shares, just prorata ownership and voting weight from initial funding via that decentralized stablecoin The irony being that nobody would notice if these exist or are prevalent specifically because there is no token doing the advertising

OlympusDAO is doing something like this, but they do have a token - DAO members get paid and theres a staking process that lets them accrue more of the token. The token is backed by a treasury and is worth at least 1 DAI. https://docs.olympusdao.finance/ Disclaimer: I own Ohm

Thanks for making me aware of that

I’ve seen ohm and olympusdao mentioned before but not what they did

Post reply on HN