1–10 of 51 posts
- pre-series-A
- significant traction already with customers you'd recognize
- likely to raise good series-A round
- about 8 engineers, 18 to 20 employees in all
- me -- 20+ years significant SW dev experience
- me -- would work remotely most of time
- offer: $130K range, 0.2% equity (seems low-ball to me, or inexperience on part of founders ... or lack of respect for the position or me)
EDIT: Actually, let me expand.
1. That does seem like lower-than-expected equity for a senior employee at a small start-up that's pre-series-A.
2. But on some level, I don't think that should be the controlling factor. I'm assuming here that this is a pretty run-of-the-mill seemingly doing-well pre-series-A startup. That is, it'll be at least five years, and probably more like ten, before it monetizes, and the chance of it monetizing is sub-10%. And your options would vest over the course of 4 years with a 1 year cliff.
3. So that said, if you're going to be there 4 years, and the company is going to do well enough over those 4 years for us to care what your equity is, then I would assume that 4 years from now, you'll be a critical member of the leadership team. The company will have had to grow a lot, you're senior already, so... right? There's plenty of chance to, in that case, have your equity position "right-size" with the company. To, in other words, re-grant stock based on whatever inflation happens and based on how you work out as a member of the inner team of the company.
4. And given how far off any equity payout is, and how uncertain it is, I'd think that your decision to go with the company should be based on salary, what you expect the salary to do in the next year or two, and whether you believe that you can become a member of the leadership team of the company and whether you would enjoy all of that.
5. If, on the other hand, this company has some kind of special sauce that means that equity payout is more likely or more near-term, then, well, maybe that justifies the lower equity award.
This current company has a highly dysfunctional development culture, no automated testing, poor choice of deployment vehicle, a VP high on the DK spectrum. I can't bear it.
The place has a very high likelihood of acquisition in the next 2 years. It's a question of how long product dev can go on before the product implodes vs how quickly the shiny CEO can attract a good buyer for the polished turd. I lose a bit of my soul every day.
after 5 years, you net even. Anything longer than that you lose out. Anything shorter, you make more (sans taxes.)
Seems like a risky bet to me.
- Does the company (and it's investors/accelerators) have some sort of prestige that many people outside of the company would recognize? (i.e. if you put it on your resume will it look good later)
- Ignore equity at this point (as the chances of it really paying off massive dividends are unrealistically low). Is $130k range in line with what you expect to earn?
(note - $130k is comfortably livable in pretty much anywhere in the SF Bay area)
Maybe I'm jaded, but I'm not sure I would ever again consider the equity portion of a job offer unless it's a stock option at a publicly traded company.
Are you excited to join the company? Do you believe in their vision? Do you find excitement in the problems that they are helping their customer's solve? Do you feel good cohesion with the founders and the engineering team?
Answering those questions are far more valuable in deciding to join a startup vs compensation. The compensation piece, if you feel is low, research and negotiate for it. If you can't find a common ground on compensation that would make you happy to work there, then don't join them.
Been there done that. The answer is: No! Think of a start-up founder like a con-man trying to sell you snake oil.
That salary is also low for SF based on what I've seen too.