Live data from Hacker News

How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

ycombinator.com

161–170 of 257 posts

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#161
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why is their contribution important? Is it your supposition that the only reason the person who went down the successful path did so purely because they watched everyone else fail? That seems highly unfair to the successful person.

Success doesn't always imply the better approach. Also, failure is an important part of science and technology, and success is often driven by insights derived from failures.

I have a successful career and my neighbors failures are not related to that in any way.

you'll need to give a more strict definition of the word better before this can be a useful conversation.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#162
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But getting "founding engineer" level equity on the order of 0.5% (before dilution!) seems to basically be a scam, where you're working 2x the amount for lower salaries than the market, 0.5% at an early stage with below market compensation, no refreshers with future rounds, negligible comp increase with future rounds, and below-market salary is indeed a scam. A lot of startups are happy to operate this way. On the…

Serious question: if you're truly being paid a market-rate salary -- e.g. roughly as much as you could make at any other VC-funded enterprise, any FAANG company, etc, not the same $110k/yr you'd make at a bank or consulting firm -- why would you get any equity? The whole point of equity is that you have skin in the game and "work harder" (whatever that means) to make the company a success. At least in the early days…

Equity is skin in the game. Why are you implying that a well paid engineer, in both salary and equity, would be treating their start-up role as a 9-5 bank job? At the very least a startup is not as safe a bet as a stable job at a big company like that. With equity they're going to want to work hard to increase the upside of their contributions.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#163
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then, hilariously, he said, "I just happened to have won that particular lottery."

Why is it hilarious?

I guess you have to see it first-hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q7FTjhvZ7Y

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#164

One of the top comments on the YouTube video attached to the article talks about how someone wasted their 20s working as the founding engineer (employee #6 of a 6-person startup) and when the company exited for $100 MM, they only got 100k and are still working at 40 years of age while the other 5, presumably having cofounder-level equity, are retired. This is the true risk of startups, and, if you're looking to maxim…

> But getting "founding engineer" level equity on the order of 0.5% (before dilution!) seems to basically be a scam, where you're working 2x the amount for lower salaries than the market, 0.5% at an early stage with below market compensation, no refreshers with future rounds, negligible comp increase with future rounds, and below-market salary is indeed a scam. A lot of startups are happy to operate this way. On the…

Generally, startups don't pay market rate, it seems. I've seen offers for $125k - $175k as the base, while bigger tech companies will pay a total compensation of double or even triple that, so the 0.5% needs to make up for that difference. I don't see any startups paying at that "market rate" of big tech, as I've generally seen. Yes, I am focusing on big tech specifically but those that work at startups should be good enough to get into a big tech company anyway.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#165

I don’t think I’ve ever seen two people laugh so much over such a sad topic… Also, I think it’s a mistake to talk about exploitation and blame when your startup is not working. Honestly, most startups don’t work out and it’s not really anybody’s fault. It’s kind of the default.

Injecting humor into a dark or sad situation is very common. It's a way to lighten the mood a bit when the topic is difficult. People joke about death for example and that's a much more serious topic than a startup cap table.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#166
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But getting "founding engineer" level equity on the order of 0.5% (before dilution!) seems to basically be a scam, where you're working 2x the amount for lower salaries than the market, 0.5% at an early stage with below market compensation, no refreshers with future rounds, negligible comp increase with future rounds, and below-market salary is indeed a scam. A lot of startups are happy to operate this way. On the…

Serious question: if you're truly being paid a market-rate salary -- e.g. roughly as much as you could make at any other VC-funded enterprise, any FAANG company, etc, not the same $110k/yr you'd make at a bank or consulting firm -- why would you get any equity? The whole point of equity is that you have skin in the game and "work harder" (whatever that means) to make the company a success. At least in the early days…

> Why, if you're going to treat a founding or near-founding position as a 9-5, 40-hour week, clock-in-clock-out type of position, would you get a piece of the upside compared to just working at a bank or consulting firm?

One can be very dedicated on a 9-to-5 schedule. Just because you value WLB doesn't mean you are in a 'clock-in-clock-out' mentality. People have lives outside of work, may be even hobbies. The idea that a startup owns your life needs to die, stat. That is an extremely toxic line of thinking.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#167
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, it's better to just start your own startup instead, there is not much need to spend years as a founding engineer before becoming a founder, you might learn some skills but it's nothing you can't learn yourself, as evidenced by the people who are first time founders who did not previously work at a startup. If you get to some scale and get acquired (or even shut down), you can leverage that for future high…

It just depends on if you have the background and talent to warrant that role. I think that is an exceptional case for someone to get funding and support to build a venture without any operating experience.

Most companies that YC and other VCs fund are by first-time founders, mostly those who have not been in other startups. Like the other commenter said, the path to being a founder is actually founding.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#168

It's funny that YC is posting this video, because as far as I can tell, YC teaches its founders to keep most of the equity for themselves, and dole out as little equity as possible to their employees. Back during the dotcom days, most employees, from secretaries to engineers, got extremely rich from options when the company IPOed. These days, in order to make a life-changing amount of money at a YC startup as an empl…

> the company needs to exit/IPO at over $5 billion in order to make about $1 million

I just don't understand who's signing a contract for 0.02% equity in a startup. How does this happen?

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is part of the hero narrative that I am also lamenting. If there are 100 possible research directions and only 1 proves successful. The people who travel along the other 99 get no recognition, despite expending the same effort and despite their contribution being just as important.

why is their contribution important? Is it your supposition that the only reason the person who went down the successful path did so purely because they watched everyone else fail? That seems highly unfair to the successful person.

For one, the successful ones might have learned from the unsuccessful ones that which does not work. This is especially the case if the unsuccessful ones are brave enough to write down that they failed. The latter does not seem to happen much now that most people celebrate only success.

Re: How to Not Get Screwed over as a Software Engineer [video]

#170

One of the top comments on the YouTube video attached to the article talks about how someone wasted their 20s working as the founding engineer (employee #6 of a 6-person startup) and when the company exited for $100 MM, they only got 100k and are still working at 40 years of age while the other 5, presumably having cofounder-level equity, are retired. This is the true risk of startups, and, if you're looking to maxim…

One thing people need to remember is the world runs on incentives. And on this topic, there is a HUGE incentive to mislead people.

The facts are:

1) Tech startups usually need a bunch of good engineers

2) Investors and founders want these engineers for as little money as possible, as almost every owner-labor relationship in history has gone

3) Stock options have mystique from once-in-a-lifetime companies like Google but are overall very complex financial instruments

4) Many engineers are a combination of poorly informed about these complexities and easily impressionable to be “sold” that these options are a good idea.

The end result is a massive amount of effort expended to hoodwink engineers on this topic. The existence of the term “founding engineer” is exhibit 1, they are an employee and could simply be called software engineer, the term was invented to add the mystique (and workload) of a founder to what’s just a regular employee without founder equity.

Exhibit 2 is this idea that being a founding engineer is a path to being a founder , this gets repeated ad nauseum despite being easily disproven by 5 minutes on linked, a slim percentage of hot startup founders had previously been “founding engineers” . Of course some startup experience might be useful but just as often you’re the code monkey hired precisely so that the actual founders have more time to do the founder stuff you’re not doing and therefore not learning.

YC is basically a VC firm so it’s like taking Exxon Mobiles PR about climate change risk at face value. There’s a huge potential for bias. And even by VC firm standards YC has been shown to be exceptionally employee- hostile in their communications to founders and the behavior of their portfolio companies.

Once again, people ask “what would a union do” and once again, here’s an answer. It could hire lawyers with a collective budget to review startup option terms and make them less likely to screw over early employees. Because the lawyers that the VCs hire are working to protect the VCs, not you. And the blog posts they publish on employee equity are written to serve their interests, not yours.

Post reply on HN