21–25 of 25 posts
I don't think Shel should be considered a co-founder. None of his DNA is imprinted into Amazon. In the end, he was pretty replaceable.
"I didn’t get founder’s stock. It didn’t seem worth the argument at the time" Apparently he's a nice, amiable guy. Regardless of whether you want to technically call him co-founder or not, it's sad to think how much he possibly missed out on by not negotiating more with Jeff at the beginning. What I walk away with is, consider all scenarios when making a deal, and don't be afraid to negotiate for something better.
As for whether or not I'm a nice amiable guy, Chris (below) is probably right -- a lot of people including him got to experience the joys of my temper while I was trying to do what isn't possible: to contain the chaos ;^\
"I didn’t get founder’s stock. It didn’t seem worth the argument at the time" Apparently he's a nice, amiable guy. Regardless of whether you want to technically call him co-founder or not, it's sad to think how much he possibly missed out on by not negotiating more with Jeff at the beginning. What I walk away with is, consider all scenarios when making a deal, and don't be afraid to negotiate for something better.
Hi. Shel Kaphan here. Just to be clear, the negotiation you are referring to was simply over whether it would be stock or employee options. No reason to be sad. Founder's stock is more convenient and less of a taxation nightmare, but there was a concern (an irrational one, I think) about what would happen if I left early. There are of course ways, such as escrow, to handle that. As for whether or not I'm a nice amiab…
How does it feel to see people arguing over whether you are a founder or not? It would seem that they care more about it than you do. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"but all the team are also 'founders' in a reasonable, non-hagiographic sense of the word." I suppose, but who is taking all of the risk? A founder takes a loss if the company loses and wins when the company is profitable. An employee doesn't take a loss (in a sense that they are paid a regular salary no matter what).
That's an overgeneralization. Many big-F Founders take salaries starting at the same time as founding employees. Both are likely taking relative cash compensation cuts compared to their next-best options, and 'risking' opportunity costs. Both might forgo salary in a funding pinch or chaotic fume-out. If the big-F Founder has a richer set of post-failure options than founding employees – and gets more beneficial notor…
If a company has enough capital to pay employee #1, then yes, the founder is making a salary. But, at this point, the risk is considerably less and employee #1 shouldn't be getting anywhere near the same payout if the company gets bought out.
The founder also most likely has their own money tied up in the company.
Employee #1 can always get unemployment if the company goes bust. The founder will have their name and business credit history tied to the company if there are major problems. Employee #1 can just go find another job as if nothing ever happened.
"If the big-F Founder has a richer set of post-failure options than founding employees – and gets more beneficial notoriety even in failure"
More risk=more reward. If you are employee #1 and you aren't getting paid industry or above industry rates, then you shouldn't be working at that startup. If you want all of the glory when it succeeds, then you need to start your own company.
Have you ever actually started a company? It's not easy. Much more difficult (and risky) than being employee #1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi. Shel Kaphan here. Just to be clear, the negotiation you are referring to was simply over whether it would be stock or employee options. No reason to be sad. Founder's stock is more convenient and less of a taxation nightmare, but there was a concern (an irrational one, I think) about what would happen if I left early. There are of course ways, such as escrow, to handle that. As for whether or not I'm a nice amiab…
Thanks for clearing that up, Shel. I shouldn't have commented before reading the rest of the interview. How does it feel to see people arguing over whether you are a founder or not? It would seem that they care more about it than you do. :)
At one point I'd say the company's "DNA" probably was influenced by me to an extent, but I've been gone for a long time, and it was tiny compared to its current size when I left, so it would be pretty surprising if any of that is still there. That's fine with me -- that's just how things work.