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

DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

blog.doordash.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 283 posts

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#271

Post by ericpruitt »

celticninja wrote: post #251
ericpruitt wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I don't see mentioned in the sibling comments is that this can also put the employee in a bad position when they don't like their job but are in the mid to late stages if their first year. You either tough it out the remaining _X_ months or quit and take a huge hit in income because you're leaving before the equity cliff.

I could see that with a 2-5 year cliff but 12 months is not a long time in a job.

I wrote "... when they *don't like their job* but are in the *mid to late stages* ..." so in this case, it'd be 3 to 6 months which isn't a long time to hold a job in general, but it is a long time when you hate your job.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#272

Post by t0mbstone »

kerng wrote: post #141

This is good progress. Just two months ago I declined an offer from a known and well funded startup because of a one year cliff on equity. The recruiter didn't seem to be able to discuss this matter and I asked them to make sure to bubble this sort of thing up their food chain. I never heard back afterwards. As an "old timer" in the industry a one year cliff makes absolutely no sense to me. Its like working for credi…

I worked at a startup and took a salary reduction in exchange for stock options with a one year cliff.

After busting my butt, often working 12 hour days for 9 months, they fired me without cause.

Because I hadn't quite worked there for a whole year yet, I didn't get any of my stock options.

I will NEVER make that mistake again.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#273

Post by bogomipz »

bootaccount wrote: post #260
pmh wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's RSUs vesting at: - 5% after 1yr - 15% at 2yrs - 20% every 6 months for years 3 and 4 The 401k match also has a 3 year cliff. But as they said, years 1-2 you typically get a signing bonus

I was exposed to this while talking to an Amazon recruiter recently, while I also hear stories about how they seem to work people to a breaking point. The median tenure at AMZN is also 1.5yrs, per linkedin. Their strategy seems to be to work their people extremely hard to earn their RSUs and pay them like plebs with hard caps on earning potential (base comp).

>"... while I also hear stories about how they seem to work people to a breaking point."

Is this a well-known thing then? More so than other FAANGs?

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#274

Post by ericd »

arnvald wrote: post #258
ericd wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seeing more offers from US companies? I've been assuming that SV-based engineers are sort of shooting themselves in the foot by demanding their companies go remote, because there are so many good engineers in the EU making a small fraction of what an SV engineer makes (even at 100k EUR).

I do (though this is anecdotal data, nothing I dug into). I have some LinkedIn job searches saved for Amsterdam, NL and I started noticing jobs from companies like Twitter, Github or Stripe where now they allow working remotely from EU countries. It's different than it was 2y ago.

Thanks, I wonder how much of that is just the way things were going for those companies, vs accelerated by the shift to remote-only.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#275

Post by jamiequint »

spotman wrote: post #243
jamiequint wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At high-quality VC-backed tech companies? I guess it might be possible it you were super early.

It’s happened multiple times for me, all with extremely well known VC backed companies. Once at later stage, but applying for a very senior role, and another at an early stage, where there was a good fit. It can be a tough sell, and recruiters are trained to just say no, but persistence pays off. Same thing applies to getting jobs in general. If you aren’t persistent in your application process and aggressive in your…

Nice negotiating! and I agree about the persistence.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#276

Post by hintymad »

MattGaiser wrote: post #151
kerng wrote: post #141

This is good progress. Just two months ago I declined an offer from a known and well funded startup because of a one year cliff on equity. The recruiter didn't seem to be able to discuss this matter and I asked them to make sure to bubble this sort of thing up their food chain. I never heard back afterwards. As an "old timer" in the industry a one year cliff makes absolutely no sense to me. Its like working for credi…

I am so fascinated at how my grandfather would spend decades at a company, my Dad would spend a decade, and now people decline jobs over the expectation that they stay 1 year. And I was in my first job 51 weeks. I don't think you are wrong in doing so as the market in tech moves fast while employers move like slugs, it is just such a shift from what I grew up to expect.

There's shift of context too. In our grandparents' generation, companies also promised to keep the workers around and sometimes to give them pension. There would be a steady career path based on seniority as well. Something along the lines of that you take of the company and we will take care of you. None of such promises exists nowadays.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#277

Post by smabie »

rejectedandsad wrote: post #233
smabie wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4 is a lot

Is it? Most folks seem to have like 6-7. Only 2 of mine were "real" from full time interviews, other two were from internships. I had a really low hit rate and didn't get into any top companies.

Stop comparing yourself to other people and focus on your self. I'm sure you can achieve what you desire.

I for example didn't graduate for hs and college, and yet, I managed to get to a place in life which my younger self would have classified as "wild ly successful."

However, everyone (including me) always wants more, and massively takes for granted their current situation. So I get it, but keep your head down and keep on climbing!

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#278

Post by sk5t »

sk5t wrote: post #134
TechBro8615 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you get a bunch of ex employees you fired after three months lingering around on the cap table (assuming you’re not a public company).

Not if they haven't passed the cliff. Unvested options forfeit.

This seems to be a very unpopular comment. But why--is the common case of losing (err, "returning to the employee option pool") unvested options at separation controversial, or have I done something offensive by pointing it out, or do y'all actually not agree with the accuracy of this?

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#279

Post by TechBro8615 »

sk5t wrote: post #278
sk5t wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if they haven't passed the cliff. Unvested options forfeit.

This seems to be a very unpopular comment. But why--is the common case of losing (err, "returning to the employee option pool") unvested options at separation controversial, or have I done something offensive by pointing it out, or do y'all actually not agree with the accuracy of this?

Probably because it was a non-sequitur to my comment. My point was that without a cliff, even employees who you terminated after three months will vest options that they can exercise for shares on your cap table. It’s irrelevant that they also have unvested options at that point. It’s the vested options that lead to the managerial overhead of a polluted cap table.

Re: DoorDash removing 1-year cliff for equity grants

#280

Post by ixs »

kerng wrote: post #223
tedmiston wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 1-year cliff / 4-year vest has been standard as long as I remember. Is this not the case anymore?

No, most big companies don't have cliffs anymore (Google, Facebook, etc...). They pay out monthly or quaterly. At least if you already worked for a while elsewhere (because they have to buy you out basically). Why would you otherwise take the risk? I'm curious about Microsoft- anyone know if Microsoft has a cliff on RSUs?

I saw a recent (I think removing the vesting cliff is great but personally I am not worried as I never sew the cliff as a problem.
Post reply on HN