I sold Baremetrics

> You think that when someone takes more than they need, they deserve to be shamed? How do you determine how much one can take?

Shame is a pretty good motivator for encouraging people to behave in a manner deemed appropriate by society. I don't think there's an easy or definite answer for how much is appropriate. I guess the question I'd ask in return is: in the case of the woman caught on security footage dumping a whole bucket of Halloween candy into her plastic bag. Why is it that we find it appropriate to shame her and not a founder/ceo who does effectively the same thing? Why can we not apply these same rules of decency to business?

> If the financial incentive to start a company is reduced, there will necessarily be a cost to innovation.

I don't think this is necessarily true. By spreading the fruits of successful innovation more broadly you put the people who enabled that innovation in a position to use that experience to innovate further.

I'd argue that model where innovation centers around founders aiming to hit unicorn status and then retire with 'fuck you' money limits it in the sense that those once you've earned your 'fuck you' money you aren't really incentivised to innovate any further.

> The rules and incentives for employment were very clearly outlined in the employment contract these people signed.

I'm questioning whether they were fair, not in this specific case, but I'm asking more generally is our approach to employment as a society reasonable and fair.

Maybe I just have a high bar for what qualifies as toxic, but most of the thread seemed to be a reasonable discussion of what had happened.

Obviously some people have made some incorrect assumptions at varying points, but I haven't seen anything that would remotely qualify as toxic.

Nice outcome. Congratulations!

Do anybody know how much Xenon Partners (te same buyer) paid recently for UXPin.com? I think that UXPin is 5-10x times bigger, but saw that their CEO after selling the company instantly joined Google as a senior manager.

UXPin had a few investors and 3-4 cofounders. So probably different outcome?

I'm not suggesting that acquisitions should necessarily be shared precisely evenly. I don't even think Josh necessarily earned an outsized return in this case. I do think that the current disparity in compensation that we're seeing is potentially dangerous to a healthy society. We're already seeing a move towards a rentier approach to the economy, where individuals can't afford to own property or other essentials. A major force driving this is inequality, those with the means have so much capital under their control that they can afford to outbid those that have a need for those resources.

> In the case of employment, each employee is offering the business owner his/her time in exchange for a salary and equity. The expectations are crystal clear to both parties. When the business owner sells the company, taking his fair share of the purchase price (as determined by his equity stake) is NOT stealing. Nor, is it breaking any norms or expectations.

I don't think it necessarily is crystal clear. A big part of the sales pitch to employees for many startups is that your.5% will be worth X when they reach Y valuation. This isn't too bad in itself, but when it turns out that the founders can issue new/preferred stock the incentives from an employees point of view become severely misaligned.

> Furthermore, for small acquisitions like this, even if you were to split his 3.7M payday across his 20 employees, each person gets $18.5K. Hardly an amount that would spur innovation.

I agree it that it doesn't look great for smaller acquisitions. Although there are some interesting (in my opinion) alternatives to selling to private equity. In my city for example, the founders of a print shop sold the company to the existing workers. The money was paid out over a few years from the company's revenue and they sat on the board to offer some advice on the transition. It seems like a more ethical alternative in that the workers are rewarded for their part in building the company, and the new owners are less likely to asset strip and gouge existing customers to recoup their investment. It has the added bonus of not adding to the concentration of capital in a small number of holders.

We're broaching many new ideas now, many of which I agree with. I agree that employers have an obligation to communicate in crystal clear terms what equity in the company means. I also agree wealth inequality endangers the stability of our society, and some form of wealth re-distribution makes sense. I also agree that worker cooperatives can make sense in some situations, though rarely.

I don't agree that employees deserve to be rewarded for their part in building the company above and beyond their cash and equity compensation.

> Personally I'd like to see it move towards a point where taking everything just because you can isn't viewed as acceptable.

I still am unsure what you're actually proposing we do.

I initially thought you were proposing we shame Josh for taking more than he needs. I strongly disagree with this principle for aforementioned reasons. To put it another way, Josh isn't taking "everything just because he can". He's taking what he owns, rightfully deserves, and worked and risked 7 long, hard years for.