61–70 of 207 posts
My pre-IPO grants alone were worth over 1.5M, and my subsequent RSU grants probably added another 1M on top of that.
I'm using a throwaway account for obvious reasons, but happy to answer any questions. I definitely was not an outlier in terms of the payout.
This is a very good question. I also want to know if there are examples other than major successes like Google and Facebook. One issue is when you want to hire people and you want to feel confident that you are offering them a "real chance" for financial success, even if it is a slim chance. I mean if you know that it is very likely that even when "you" have a win (whatever your goal is) and your investors have a win…
The average engineer who joined square about 3 years ago has made more than 2M
Now on my fifth startup as employee number 15-20 (not sure which since we are growing so fast). We are funding growth out of VC money. Good name brand VCs that everyone here would be happy to take money from.
Still, I have learned my lesson. I make my life plans as though I can only depend on my salary and my wife's salary. Luckily for me, my wife is a lawyer from an Ivy and makes enough money that I don't worry about failing too much.
Even though most of my peers who graduated with me are independently wealthy (Yahoo, Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc.), over the years I've learned to moderate my life expectations. My wife and I don't expect to ever afford a big house in Silicon Valley. Our long term plan is to move somewhere cheaper.
That is unless startup #5 succeeds in a big way ... HAHAHAHA lets not kid ourselves. But its fun to imagine :)
This is probably the best take I've read on what is going on. There ARE people who make a lot of money on equity, even as employees. The issue is that there are a lot more people who make nothing. This is actually what is supposed to happen. After all, most businesses fail.
If you made money through equity... then obviously the friends you worked with at that company made money too. And if you didn't... then your friends, who were at the same company, probably made nothing as well.
Just as a matter of full disclosure, I've had two SUPER nice exits. I got them by NOT going out to Silicon Valley to try the internet startup route though. I stayed in the midwest and went the medical imaging route. The thing is this, there were't 1000 other companies doing the same thing. So the odds of winning were much higher. So my personal advice would be to look at the KIND of company you're getting equity from. Molecular Imaging startup??? Yeah... you're probably gonna want as much equity as possible. Yet Another Consumer Web/SmartApp startup??? Your odds of that equity being lucrative are much lower, you should plan accordingly.
Either way, it's basically a lottery ticket. I got really lucky a couple of times. Others won't. But it's basically all down to luck of the draw. I just drew a straw from a pool with very few lots. Whereas the people in the Silicon Valley-Web/SmartApp industry draw straws from a pool with millions of lots. In both cases, luck is probably a pretty big factor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, PG's advice is not useful for all founders, just the 1 out of every 10 that makes it big. The others are supposed to nut up and get over it. His advice does, however, benefit every venture capitalist.
Critiques of Paul Graham and YC lose me the instant they suggest that they're rigging the system for venture capitalists. I've got friends in YC, I've worked closely with YC companies for years, I know several people at YC, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that their intentions are (a) good and (b) founder-aligned. I'm pretty sure they're wrong about a couple things --- particularly the stuff that comes from…
They have the best interests of founders in mind only insofar as their pocketbooks and reputation benefit from it. That's at best an intersection that doesn't contain all the elements in both sets.
Disclaimer: I'm a pretty cynical and skeptical person by nature. I'm especially suspicious when people with a lot of money at risk say, well, just about anything. My experiences have lead me to believe that it is an extremely rare individual who will not go to great lengths to protect and accumulate his wealth, even to an extent that many would consider sociopathic, and further that this trait is amplified geometrically as wealth is accumulated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Critiques of Paul Graham and YC lose me the instant they suggest that they're rigging the system for venture capitalists. I've got friends in YC, I've worked closely with YC companies for years, I know several people at YC, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that their intentions are (a) good and (b) founder-aligned. I'm pretty sure they're wrong about a couple things --- particularly the stuff that comes from…
Perhaps you'd understand if people discounted your comment slightly because of your apparent close relationship with YC, then? They have the best interests of founders in mind only insofar as their pocketbooks and reputation benefit from it. That's at best an intersection that doesn't contain all the elements in both sets. Disclaimer: I'm a pretty cynical and skeptical person by nature. I'm especially suspicious when…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Critiques of Paul Graham and YC lose me the instant they suggest that they're rigging the system for venture capitalists. I've got friends in YC, I've worked closely with YC companies for years, I know several people at YC, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that their intentions are (a) good and (b) founder-aligned. I'm pretty sure they're wrong about a couple things --- particularly the stuff that comes from…
So? YC can have founder interests at heart and still give out VC biased advice because of the type of startup they encourage. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Historically YC has given more power to entrepreneurs vs the VCs. JL & co. founded YC mainly because VCs sucked even more at the time. Given what YC has accomplished, I'm sure a lot of people can say that they've made things better.
Can the current VC environment be improved? Yes. Has it gotten much better ever since YC's influence has grown? Yes. Will Sam change one of YC's core missions of giving founders more equal footing? It's possible but I really I doubt it.
Worth pointing out that when people throw numbers around the stock value alone may sound impressive but that has to be compared against the opportunity cost that's usually associated with that route. Usually those options are handed out because the employee is accepting less cash or other compensation than another employer might pay then for similar work. Walking away with $750k after 5 years might sound fantastic, b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, PG's advice is not useful for all founders, just the 1 out of every 10 that makes it big. The others are supposed to nut up and get over it. His advice does, however, benefit every venture capitalist.
Critiques of Paul Graham and YC lose me the instant they suggest that they're rigging the system for venture capitalists. I've got friends in YC, I've worked closely with YC companies for years, I know several people at YC, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that their intentions are (a) good and (b) founder-aligned. I'm pretty sure they're wrong about a couple things --- particularly the stuff that comes from…
So can a "big picture" view: a 90% probability of failure might not seem nearly so bad to someone who can hedge by investing (not necessarily just $) in hundreds of companies. Expectation maximization is much more appealing when you have enough trials to get one of them off the ground. Whereas a founder "starting from 0" might reasonably prefer a ~maximin approach. Neither objective is wrong or corrupt, but advice that suits one and not the other might as well be.
PG and everyone in YC know this and I'm sure they all make honest efforts to work around the tension, but we should be realistic about the fact that tension exists.