If this is so good, why not switch your old employees on the 4 year grants to it?
Golden Handcuffs
271–274 of 274 posts
Re: Golden Handcuffs
#272Re: Golden Handcuffs
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think everything you said is true at face value, but do you have a viable alternative proposal? Do you prefer to believe that financial investment is riskier than time investment, and do you want to preserve the status quo where there’s a power imbalance in favor of money investors? I’m suggesting a way to value an employee’s time investment in a startup that doesn’t depend on speculation or subjective discussion o…
So I'm missing your point. If you forego $100k/yr of stock options to work at a startup, you're hedging your risk. You're still getting healthcare & a regular paycheck (even if it's less). This directly impacts the company's runway (i.e. your "100k investment" looks like a cost to the company. Don't forget that once you're past the seed round (where the company is literally making nothing), you're looking at multi-mi…
Again, all true statements, but I’m still not hearing any suggestion or viable alternative for how to value an employee’s equity, or how to grant stock. What are you suggesting? How would you grant stock as a founder? Have you started a company before?
My point is that there is a reasonable and fair metric and strategy by which to grant stock, and that this metric is not based on subjective and speculative and unmeasurable ideas about someone’s supposed risk and/or future contribution to the company. You’re making all great points, but none so far have been reasons not to grant stock according to a simple formula that considers the company’s valuation and the employee’s non-cash-compensated time investment. The top comment I replied to was referring to a subjective notion of “risk” on the part of investors, and that’s what I’m responding to by pointing out that investors and employees are risking exactly the same thing, especially if the employees do what you said here and evaluate what role they want to play the same way the investor did.
Re: Golden Handcuffs
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but they arent though. 350-400k is actually somewhat low for senior. They have been paying this for a long time. Its great money remote. I really dont understand the issue
> Yeah but they arent though. 350-400k is actually somewhat low for senior. I wouldn't say this. It's solidly middle of the road for a Google or FB senior, and high/unreachable for an Amazon or Microsoft Senior. Its probably(?) on the lower side for Netflix. This is all before stock growth. Someone who has been a Senior for 5 years at Google or Facebook will be vesting shares that doubled in value, so the take home p…
> It's solidly middle of the road for a Google or FB senior, and high/unreachable for an Amazon
What is the logical conclusion you take from this about the people that can’t get into fb or Google but do work at Amazon or Microsoft?