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

They thought they were joining an accelerator – instead they lost their startups

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–167 of 167 posts

Re: They thought they were joining an accelerator – instead they lost their startups

#161

Post by bomewish »

kcartlidge wrote: post #13
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #4

What a psychopath. To anyone who may be in this kind of situation, trust your instincts and leave . It will not get better. You will find other, better opportunities elsewhere. Best lesson I ever learned was from a high level exec that had just started at the company where I worked. He quit in 2 weeks. Impressively, he did it without drama or really even causing bad will - he just told the CEO it wasn't a match, and…

Years ago I took a dev role at a very well known UK organisation, a prestigious brand supposedly good for the career. Their systems turned out to be smoke and mirrors of the most braindead kind. One and a half days in I'd seen enough and I quit. If you know, you know.

Did you tell them what was wrong and how it should be fixed (in general terms)? Or I'm guessing your sense was, that would be a complete waste of time because the organization is so dysfunctional that if they _wanted_ to know, they could have figured it out?

Seems that raw pragmatism/self-preservation clashes with conscientiousness in some cases like this.

Re: They thought they were joining an accelerator – instead they lost their startups

#162

Post by deaddodo »

lupire wrote: post #152
deaddodo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about the former point, in contract law, but the latter. They could have rendered services, but if they're far out scaled to what the other party offered they would be considered inequitable and breachable. This is the primary basis that California used to disqualify non-executive non-competes (before they were outright legislated out).

California's basis was "reatraint of trade". Equitability was not a factor, regardless of how much was paid for the noncompete. The legal basis for voiding contracts is "unconscionability".

> Equitability was not a factor, regardless of how much was paid for the noncompete.

There was no equitable value, which directly led into economic restraint and servitude arguments.

> The legal basis for voiding contracts is "unconscionability".

Not sure what you're referring to here, but you should review "balance of contract" and "fair and equitable terms" in US and California contract law.

Re: They thought they were joining an accelerator – instead they lost their startups

#163

Post by zh3 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #148
datascienced wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Execs can have bigger voids due to gardening leave, non competes so it looks OK. But honestly because you can (in theory) lie on your CV it ain’t worth worrying about. So the scenario where you die because you run out of money and need a job because of a gap can be remediated that way. Change the dates or something.

is this 'gardening leave' some british thing?

Yes, means you're still paid by the company but have essentially no duties. One way of making their inside knowledge somewhat stale before they officially leave.

Re: They thought they were joining an accelerator – instead they lost their startups

#164

Post by whitten »

CPLX wrote: post #141
kevindamm wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine they spend money to consume food... after which, both food and money are gone.

What money? I thought there was no reason to be a VC? Or do they get paid? Is it a lot?

Yes. There is a lot of money to be made in VC. Look at "exit strategy" for more info.

Re: They thought they were joining an accelerator – instead they lost their startups

#165

Post by lmm »

prawn wrote: post #67
lmm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of hinting is worse than useless. "If you know, you know" is obnoxious. If you mean Autonomy you should say so, and if you don't then your post is just misleading and confusing.

I assumed they were suggesting that they knew that it would be best to leave the company and didn't hang around. e.g., "If you know [hanging around will be a waste of time], you know [enough that you should leave]."

Your generosity does you credit, but no, it's a set phrase.

Re: They thought they were joining an accelerator – instead they lost their startups

#166

Post by avarun »

threeseed wrote: post #102
fuzzythinker wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any source to your avoid TechStars advice?

The other problem with advice is that TechStars operates like a franchise. So you don't know which of the many accelerators are problematic or not or what their incentives are.

Not anymore. They switched to a centralized model under their new CEO.

Re: They thought they were joining an accelerator – instead they lost their startups

#167

Post by simonebrunozzi »

moralestapia wrote: post #23
iamleppert wrote: post #6

Add TechStars to the list of accelerators to be avoided at all costs. They make an investment in your company on terms they can claw back the money at any time. Most of these accelerators provide little to no value, in my experience. Unless you need to know what “product market fit” means. Hilarious.

Most VCs add zero value aside from the money. Bootstrapping is always better, if you can do it, of course. Exhibit A: Naval Ravikant, the flagship SV investor, widely regarded to as "a wise man", just released a kind of crappy messaging app that flopped. Imagine having unlimited leverage, unlimited money, unlimited reputation, a huge audience already in place and still that not being enough to put out a competent pro…

Caution. You might end up like the Dropbox guy... [0]

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

Post reply on HN