Live data from Hacker News

Employee Equity

blog.samaltman.com

91–100 of 342 posts

Re: Employee Equity

#91

Very interesting. I like this train of thought. I have a lot of developer friends that would rather (and are) pursuing their own entrepreneurial ideas than join an existing company. While I wholeheartedly support that, the flip side is fewer startup-savvy developers available to join other startups. There are a lot of reasons why they are pursuing their own ventures. A common one is: "It's not worth it to be an emplo…

> "It's not worth it to be an employee of a startup. You need to be a founder."

Yup. If you can get a job at a tech company that offers high compensation, you will likely make more there (and gain lots of great experience) than you will at a startup.

Look at the value over 4 years: - Startup salary (~$100k-ish) vs. Tech co (~$140k-ish+) - Startup equity could be worth $1,000,000 if you get 1% and the company sells for 100 million (obviously there can be other factors here, but lets just use that number) - Large co. Stock grant could be 150k-200k+(or more!) over 4 years, and you'll likely get refresher grants on top of that each year. And the stock price will likely go up over those 4 years. So after year 4 you are making quite a bit off of your vesting stocks.

There's also a pretty good chance the startup will fail, which would net you nothing but a sub-market salary for the last few years, so it will be harder for you to negotiate a higher salary at your next gig. Or if you are acqui-hired, you'll get some small hiring bonus and then have to wait 4 more years for your new stock to vest.

To me, the only time joining a startup and taking below-market compensation is if you are just starting out and want to gain some experience you might not get at a more established company, or perhaps your skills aren't up to par so you can't get past the interviews[1].

Or maybe you just like the "startup culture", and that's cool, but why not start your own thing instead?

[1] Note that if your startup gets acqui-hired, you'll probably have to interview anyway, which could result in not getting an offer!

Re: Employee Equity

#92
post #82

This is probably not the right vehicle to ask 'Am I being treated fairly?', but I think I will anyways. The startup is pre Series A, I'm the first non founding/non executive level engineer, I'm technically a contractor but treated pretty much exactly like an employee (I know that's a whole separate thing), I'm not the most experienced engineer, i.e. last year at my prior job I was an intermediate level but this year…

A few points; .25% seems low but; a) How close is you hourly rate to what you would get normally? b) Are you learning tech that will set you up to make big money? c) Are you gaining insight about the industry that will set you up to be a co-founder?

Interesting points, thanks for your comment.

a) It's actually about $15-20 an hour less going off of my last job. I do consider it extra compensation that they are remote friendly, because I got to do some world traveling while working and they were fine with it. But now I'm back home in the Bay (...but also considering traveling again to make it worth my while).

b) Nope, just web stuff I'm already used to doing. The CTO at least is talented so I have learned from him.

c) Potentially. So far no specialized insights into opportunities for new players in the space. Those insights may or may not come.

Re: Employee Equity

#94
post #69

I've worked at two startups, including one YC. Both were acquired by larger tech companies. I was employee #3 at one and rebuilt most of a broken codebase in the other. I got nothing out of either WRT options. I agree with the author on point 4 but I don't think more options are the answer, I should have just asked for a higher salary I would have been better off. Startup-bucks are even worse than a lottery ticket, b…

As a potential future founder what strategy will you employ in regards to compensation?

Re: Employee Equity

#95
post #69

I've worked at two startups, including one YC. Both were acquired by larger tech companies. I was employee #3 at one and rebuilt most of a broken codebase in the other. I got nothing out of either WRT options. I agree with the author on point 4 but I don't think more options are the answer, I should have just asked for a higher salary I would have been better off. Startup-bucks are even worse than a lottery ticket, b…

"Startup-bucks are even worse than a lottery ticket...."

Also because if they are worth something, it's a motivation for the company to fire you before you can cash out. E.g. while the discrimination case against Google was settled out of court for undisclosed terms, whatever the motivation, the timing of the firing of Brian Reid 9 days before the company's IPO was clearly not an accident. (119,000 options, $10 million on the day of the IPO, lots more later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_(computer_scientist... )

Given that we're living in a mostly post-IPO world, you could well be better off never getting options....

Re: Employee Equity

#96
post #69

I've worked at two startups, including one YC. Both were acquired by larger tech companies. I was employee #3 at one and rebuilt most of a broken codebase in the other. I got nothing out of either WRT options. I agree with the author on point 4 but I don't think more options are the answer, I should have just asked for a higher salary I would have been better off. Startup-bucks are even worse than a lottery ticket, b…

I had similar experience with startups. With current conventions in startup labor market, only being a founder or or being at Facebook as number Both are off my list because I'm not lucky enough to join the next Facebook and I'm not capable of founding a company myself at the moment.

Getting sweet $170k salary with some bonus, massage, free food and shuttle is good enough for me.

Re: Employee Equity

#97
post #64

This is where having a startup outside of the valley is nice. Nobody where we are (KC) really even expects stock options. We just pay a good competitive salary and don't have to compete with someone like Google paying 2x as much. We have given some people stock incentives but because we pay well and competitively it isn't the primary compensation. The costs of running a startup are so much lower here.

I'm curious why the people who are not in the valley don't go to the valley. Is it because they: a) aren't motivated to b) don't know what the potential is there may not even know what is going on. May not even know about YC or VC's etc. c) don't think there is potential there (think it's all over hyped and focuses on a few people who win). d) have family obligations which prevent them from moving to the valley e) Ot…

Reasons I've heard:

- Cost of living relative to expected salary is too low.

- Can work for big public companies that pay well in lower-cost areas.

- Weather preferences.

- Family lives thousands of miles away from SF.

- Over 30, still interested in doing technical work.

- Want to own a home, not a millionaire.

- Interested in starting a business, low-cost matters if not going for VC.

- Found interesting & challenging technical work elsewhere.

Etc.

This is kind of like asking why people didn't all move to NYC in the 2000s, or Texas during the oil boom, etc.

Re: Employee Equity

#98
post #57

I am a fan of giving options every year with a performance multiplier. That way the high performers are rewarded with more options and your available options are more accurately divided amongst the employees who have made the most impact. When you are not yet cash flow positive as a startup you can give 'bonuses' in options rather than in cash. I don't know if we could figure out a portion that employees could contri…

How do you define performance? It's a fantastically difficult thing to define. In my experience every attempt at this (at least for engineers) ends up in a situation where people are putting their effort into maximizing metrics as opposed to furthering business goals. We completely decouple performance reviews from compensation. Full stop.

In a startup / smallish company it is pretty easy to evaluate relative impact for a given quarter. I would agree its really really hard to do that algorithmically.

Re: Employee Equity

#99
post #60

You know, it's funny, I read things like this from time to time: "so if I have 0.5% of company and it gets acquired tomorrow for $100 million dollars, will I get $500,000?" and I remember that I am in this exact scenario, and have no idea what the answer is. I've been an employee at a startup for 2 years now. I joined when I was young, naive, and broke — I don't even remember if I read the paperwork before signing it…

1) Go talk to HR for the documents relating to your specific situation. This is not something that will be threatening to HR.

2) Take the documents to an attorney for advice on how to proceed.

Re: Employee Equity

#100
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100K is not more than enough to live on, if you live in the Valley and have a family (say 3 kids) then 100K barely buys you a comfortable lifestyle. I know that is not the point of this thread but so much focus of these discussions seems to pivot around a 22 year old college dropout who lives with roommates in a shared apartment. When you reach a certain point, say your mid-30s and you have kids your financial obliga…

And that's why in the latter case, an early stage startup may not be for you. You join later, with a higher salary, when it has stabilized and looks to be going somewhere. And without the risk, you don't expect the equity to offset it. Pretty simple, really.

An equity offering of 1-5% doesn't offset the reduced salary. That equity typically doesn't imbue the recipient with the same authority as the founders' equity imbues them. Yet, for example, Hire #1 in a two-founder startup is pretty darn close to sharing 1/3 rd of the risk as the founders. It's just that his risk is assumed to be amortized over the term of his tenure and slightly reduced by a salary, so it has the appearance of being significantly less than it really is, even though neither component of that assumption is valid.
Post reply on HN