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

Venture-capital infusions shrank Box founders’ stakes, ignited strife

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: Venture-capital infusions shrank Box founders’ stakes, ignited strife

#41

Post by kzhahou »

gregcohn wrote: post #31
kareemm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why being a super early employee is one of the worst deals in tech: marginally less risk than the founders, long hours, minimal equity, and likely below-market salary. There are upsides, but outside of a few rare cases, I can't imagine joining a company at this stage.

It's very easy to justify turning down early-stage jobs with that mentality -- and I've turned down a number that would have made me retirement wealthy based on precisely that logic. But now that I'm a founder I'd take issue with the "marginally less risk" comment. Quitting a six-figure job, forgoing income for a year-plus, taking the risks of never getting liftoff or financing, taking another year or more at way-bel…

Yeah, being a founder is higher risk. Correct. At each stage towards success, a company is de-risked.

But founders' equity usually totals the equity of all employees combined. Did the founders' risk --and their contributions-- equal the total of everyone else in the company, combined?

I'm arguing the numbers in today's equity distributions are wildly out of proportion.

Re: Venture-capital infusions shrank Box founders’ stakes, ignited strife

#42

Post by angersock »

kzhahou wrote: post #41
gregcohn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very easy to justify turning down early-stage jobs with that mentality -- and I've turned down a number that would have made me retirement wealthy based on precisely that logic. But now that I'm a founder I'd take issue with the "marginally less risk" comment. Quitting a six-figure job, forgoing income for a year-plus, taking the risks of never getting liftoff or financing, taking another year or more at way-bel…

Yeah, being a founder is higher risk. Correct. At each stage towards success, a company is de-risked. But founders' equity usually totals the equity of all employees combined. Did the founders' risk --and their contributions-- equal the total of everyone else in the company, combined? I'm arguing the numbers in today's equity distributions are wildly out of proportion.

Especially if you take into account saving technical cofounder s from themselves.

Re: Venture-capital infusions shrank Box founders’ stakes, ignited strife

#44

Post by davidjnelson »

devinhelton wrote: post #32
kareemm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why being a super early employee is one of the worst deals in tech: marginally less risk than the founders, long hours, minimal equity, and likely below-market salary. There are upsides, but outside of a few rare cases, I can't imagine joining a company at this stage.

If you can get into YC, or have a sellable product, or an idea you are obsessed with, or can get seed funding, then by all means, found a company. But, from my observation of friends who have gone full-time on a startup project, and who tried to bootstrap it into a company, probably less than 1 out of 10 endeavors even makes it to a stage where it could pay anyone a partial market salary. So by joining a seed funded…

3 is sage wisdom. Reminds me of Andy Rachleffs excellent advice. Do you think 3 is worth it if 70 hour weeks are mandatory and the tech chosen is clearly inferior? Hmm...

Re: Venture-capital infusions shrank Box founders’ stakes, ignited strife

#45

Post by interesting_att »

kzhahou wrote: post #41
gregcohn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very easy to justify turning down early-stage jobs with that mentality -- and I've turned down a number that would have made me retirement wealthy based on precisely that logic. But now that I'm a founder I'd take issue with the "marginally less risk" comment. Quitting a six-figure job, forgoing income for a year-plus, taking the risks of never getting liftoff or financing, taking another year or more at way-bel…

Yeah, being a founder is higher risk. Correct. At each stage towards success, a company is de-risked. But founders' equity usually totals the equity of all employees combined. Did the founders' risk --and their contributions-- equal the total of everyone else in the company, combined? I'm arguing the numbers in today's equity distributions are wildly out of proportion.

1) "Did the founders' risk --and their contributions-- equal the total of everyone else in the company, combined?"

It depends on how you define the founders' risk as well as their contributions. Both are highly subjective. In Box's case, they could've failed due to an infinite number of potential causes, leaving Levie penniless. We don't consider them because Box is now a huge company. As for a founder's contribution, a prescient business strategy and the ability to handle stress is worth its weight in gold. Who would have thought of starting a cloud storage company in 2005? Who could have raised funds for a tech company in 2005, especially someone as inexperienced as Levie? Additionally, founders have to deal with way more stress than an employee. Founders end up thinking about their startups 24/7, because that is their future. An employee can walk away at any time and just get another job.

2) "I'm arguing the numbers in today's equity distributions are wildly out of proportion."

This assumes there is some ideal proportion, one that leads to some optimal social outcome. High equity payouts for founders mean there will be more founders, as average long-term compensation will go up. High equity payouts for first-employees will mean there be more people who want to join semi-stable startups as employees #1 and #2. Which leads to a better social outcome? I don't really know. I would guess we would be better off trying to encourage people to become founders rather than employees. What I do know is that if you don't think equity is good enough for you, you can always try to start a negotiation or start your own company.

Re: Venture-capital infusions shrank Box founders’ stakes, ignited strife

#46

Post by a3n »

kzhahou wrote: post #21

> Aaron Levie and Dylan Smith are worth more than $100 million combined after turning the cloud software firm they started in a Berkeley, Calif., garage into Box Inc., with 1,200 employees and expected revenue of $285 million this year. ...But getting there took 10 years. This illustrates very well the disparity between founder and non-founder equity. It's considered a negative that Levie and Smith got only $100 mill…

> Where's the WSJ article on them, and the thousands of others who are never written about when silicon valley companies go public?

The WSJ isn't about those people. Those people are just human resources.

Re: Venture-capital infusions shrank Box founders’ stakes, ignited strife

#47

Post by kareemm »

gregcohn wrote: post #31
kareemm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why being a super early employee is one of the worst deals in tech: marginally less risk than the founders, long hours, minimal equity, and likely below-market salary. There are upsides, but outside of a few rare cases, I can't imagine joining a company at this stage.

It's very easy to justify turning down early-stage jobs with that mentality -- and I've turned down a number that would have made me retirement wealthy based on precisely that logic. But now that I'm a founder I'd take issue with the "marginally less risk" comment. Quitting a six-figure job, forgoing income for a year-plus, taking the risks of never getting liftoff or financing, taking another year or more at way-bel…

> and I've turned down a number that would have made me retirement wealthy based on precisely that logic.

How many have you turned down that would have yielded zero?

> Quitting a six-figure job, forgoing income for a year-plus, taking the risks of never getting liftoff or financing, taking another year or more at way-below-market angel-funded salary...

Absent forgoing income entirely, most seed-stage employees take the same amount of risk.

> you're getting all of the career and relationship equity of having been a key player on a huge success.

The problem is that every founder is selling this vision to early hires, but joining a seed-stage company is almost always too early to determine whether you're joining a huge success or a company that will flame out in any of a hundred ways.

> I would argue that early-stage roles, if you can tolerate the opportunity cost over the near term, are one of the better deals going

I would argue that early-stage roles at companies that become successful are one of the better deals going.

> and likely (though only arguably) better than being an under-ready founder with a high likelihood of failure.

In my experience being a founder is a much better teacher than being an under-ready early-stage employee. Being responsible for the success of the company provides opportunities for growth like nothing else.

Re: Venture-capital infusions shrank Box founders’ stakes, ignited strife

#48

Post by gregcohn »

kareemm wrote: post #47
gregcohn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very easy to justify turning down early-stage jobs with that mentality -- and I've turned down a number that would have made me retirement wealthy based on precisely that logic. But now that I'm a founder I'd take issue with the "marginally less risk" comment. Quitting a six-figure job, forgoing income for a year-plus, taking the risks of never getting liftoff or financing, taking another year or more at way-bel…

> and I've turned down a number that would have made me retirement wealthy based on precisely that logic. How many have you turned down that would have yielded zero? > Quitting a six-figure job, forgoing income for a year-plus, taking the risks of never getting liftoff or financing, taking another year or more at way-below-market angel-funded salary... Absent forgoing income entirely, most seed-stage employees take t…

Hey Kareem, long time!

This is an important discussion, and my comments shouldn't be interpreted to mean I don't think joining an early-stage company is risky. It is! But it is easy to be too conservative with the OP's logic, and not everyone is ready to be a founder, so I think it's a great spot for people who have some risk tolerance but still want to build learnings and networks, and it has potential to turn out well financially too. And, you get a lot more opportunity to see data before you join, and to leave early, if it's not going anywhere.

To answer your question, I have turned down my share startup deals that would have had no stock upside, and accepted a few too. But I've also turned down a number of opportunities that clearly had breakout potential, and in aggregate, if measuring strictly by wealth creation potential, I believe I sub-optimized by not taking more of the startup gigs that were offered to me. (There were other personal reasons for these decisions too, which offset those outcomes.)

YMMV!

Re: Venture-capital infusions shrank Box founders’ stakes, ignited strife

#49

Post by kareemm »

gregcohn wrote: post #48
kareemm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and I've turned down a number that would have made me retirement wealthy based on precisely that logic. How many have you turned down that would have yielded zero? > Quitting a six-figure job, forgoing income for a year-plus, taking the risks of never getting liftoff or financing, taking another year or more at way-below-market angel-funded salary... Absent forgoing income entirely, most seed-stage employees take t…

Hey Kareem, long time! This is an important discussion, and my comments shouldn't be interpreted to mean I don't think joining an early-stage company is risky. It is! But it is easy to be too conservative with the OP's logic, and not everyone is ready to be a founder, so I think it's a great spot for people who have some risk tolerance but still want to build learnings and networks, and it has potential to turn out w…

Hey Greg =)

> I think it's a great spot for people who have some risk tolerance but still want to build learnings and networks

Agreed - I think that learning and networks are two major upsides of early-stage co's. My original point though was how, relative to other options, I still don't think it's a great deal.

But indeed, YMMV :)

Post reply on HN