Startups Rejecting Venture Capital • Hacker News Board

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#211

Post by woolvalley » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 10:03 PM UTC

foobiekr wrote: post #203

woolvalley wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at a big tech co. I almost never fill out any spreadsheet, use JIRA, use a ticketing system that strongly, worry about 'user stories', have 'hurry up and wait' deadlines and so on. Maybe go to another big co?

I would love to know about the list of "good" big companies (and good teams within them). In my direct experience, the big companies are soul crushing and monotonous and one is surrounded by mediocrity.

The best way to find out is to go interview at big cos, and ask them about all of your worries about process. One team can have a ton of process, the other can barely have any. It's really mostly a team and department basis thing.

In my limited experience in talking with other people, FAANG tends to not have as much process as finance, IBM, insurance or other 'boring big companies'.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#212

Post by woolvalley » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 10:04 PM UTC

mi100hael wrote: post #193

woolvalley wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at a big tech co. I almost never fill out any spreadsheet, use JIRA, use a ticketing system that strongly, worry about 'user stories', have 'hurry up and wait' deadlines and so on. Maybe go to another big co?

I wouldn't say all of those things are bad things. I'd hope even the smallest of startups is thinking about how users interact with their software and organizing those interactions into some sort of prioritized backlog for development.

We definitely have a planning process, I do write things down into design docs, and do keep track of things in some spreadsheets, docs and tickets. But I don't find it an excessive, oppressive or impractical process, which is probably what the parent post is hinting to.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#213

Post by dasil003 » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 10:07 PM UTC

dunpeal wrote: post #160

eanzenberg wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily, as talents at that level which are valued in top tech may be different than talents at that level that are valued at growing startups. There a variety of companies that pay top dollar for talent, straddling early stage startups all the way through established companies. That doesn't mean it's easy to get those jobs. It does mean that you should apply your talents where it fits. BTW, you don't need to…

> Not necessarily, as talents at that level which are valued in top tech may be different than talents at that level that are valued at growing startups. I worked at both. Talent overlap is quite high, far higher than is commonly assumed. > There a variety of companies that pay top dollar for talent, straddling early stage startups all the way through established companies. I worked in startups for many years, and mo…

Got a link about the LinkedIn clawback? I hadn’t heard of this and google is not turning anything up. Has it been whitewashed?

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#214

Post by aliston » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

dawhizkid wrote: post #194

aliston wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why RSUs over options? In CA, in particular, if you're at a rocketship, the tax benefits of early exercised options can be huge, whereas with RSUs you're paying 30-40% to the government.

if you have the funds to early exercise, chances are you're joining a company that isn't yet a rocketship. and of course at that stage you can't make the same comparison with what you'd get at FB because your strike price is probably in the pennies and you're getting some small % of the overall company. Real world example: low to mid level engineers at Uber joining in 2014/2015 at this point have stock worth over $2m…

Out of curiosity, where did you get these numbers and data about when Uber was offering RSUs?

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#215

Post by dawhizkid » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 10:21 PM UTC

icedchai wrote: post #206

jon-wood wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Options are often not worth the paper they’re printed on. For pre-IPO, pre-acquisition, companies there’s no real market for those options. You may well be able to get better tax rates on them, but only if you can actually sell them. Compare that to RSUs which you can exchange the day they vest for actual cash, with a minimum of fuss. For perspective here I, and everyone I know who have worked for startups as an empl…

Paper? You don't even get paper stock certificates these days. It's all electronic. At a previous company, I exercised my stock options when I left. This cost me about $4K. Two years later, I got $12K back... not a bad return, but certainly not the "potential for early retirement" I was told when I joined.

it's just a colloquialism...

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#216

Post by niccolop » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 10:26 PM UTC

jonlucc wrote: post #92

niccolop wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But yet somehow Europe is a wasteland by comparison to the States for startups. In many, particularly, Northern European countries health care and college is the norm, even if UBI is further off, there are many subsidies and benefits one can have. It is the desire, hunger, and unmet needs that creates many startups.

I don't think so; there must be many other factors. You seem to be saying that people are more motivated by not being able to afford healthcare and college for themselves or their kids, and that seems bonkers to me. If that were the motivation, people would be getting jobs at universities rather than founding startups, as most universities have fantastic health insurance and reduced tuition for employees' children. O…

No that’s the opposite of what I was saying. It is OP who suggested this. I agree of course free health etc. does not make me do a startup. Otherwise many more would exist in the Nordics.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#217

Post by lordnacho » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

hsk0823 wrote: post #143

lordnacho wrote: post #69

From the investor point of view, there's a clear problem with the VC model as described. How do you establish that a VC has any skill? If the game is to throw a load of money at different firms, in the hope of getting 99 losers and a massive winner, how do you tell the good ones from the bad ones? Keep in mind there's noise; a guy with alpha might have a bad day before going to meet Uber or Facebook. He then gets 100…

Define reasonable because to the VC taking the large risk, 5% YoY isn't the goal.

Tens of percents.

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#218

Post by dunpeal » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 10:42 PM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #213

dunpeal wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not necessarily, as talents at that level which are valued in top tech may be different than talents at that level that are valued at growing startups. I worked at both. Talent overlap is quite high, far higher than is commonly assumed. > There a variety of companies that pay top dollar for talent, straddling early stage startups all the way through established companies. I worked in startups for many years, and mo…

Got a link about the LinkedIn clawback? I hadn’t heard of this and google is not turning anything up. Has it been whitewashed?

My bad, it was Skype, not LinkedIn: https://www.businessinsider.com/skype-scandal-silver-lake-20...

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#219

Post by dawhizkid » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 10:50 PM UTC

aliston wrote: post #214

dawhizkid wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you have the funds to early exercise, chances are you're joining a company that isn't yet a rocketship. and of course at that stage you can't make the same comparison with what you'd get at FB because your strike price is probably in the pennies and you're getting some small % of the overall company. Real world example: low to mid level engineers at Uber joining in 2014/2015 at this point have stock worth over $2m…

Out of curiosity, where did you get these numbers and data about when Uber was offering RSUs?

People share offers all the time on Blind

Re: Startups Rejecting Venture Capital

#220

Post by wslh » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 10:55 PM UTC

peterlk wrote: post #18

This might be an unpopular opinion, but my view of VC money has changed significantly in the last couple years. Raising money is a failure mode. If you are raising money it is because you failed at something and you need the money to catch yourself. This is more true for software companies than, say hardware companies, but I think is still generally true. For example, if you are raising because you need to hire peopl…

I don't agree, even as a founder who bootstrapped two companies.

Nowadays, software companies are capital intensive. They don't start in a garage like in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. Are there exceptions? Sure, but they are outliers.

Marketing is one of the components that make your service or product capital intensive. Another is the level of details your product need to be in the market. In the past you were competing in the functionality now you are competing in the UX, multiplatform support, integratuon with other systems, etc.