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

Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 553 posts

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#61

Post by bryanrasmussen »

crazygringo wrote: post #25

This is one of the most confusing things I've ever read. Cognition acquired Windsurf. So how has he "joined Cognition"? "I had a place at Google DeepMind as part of the deal." What does that mean? DeepMind doesn't have anything to do with Cognition or Windsurf, right? Why would an offer at Google require forfeiting vested shares in Windsurf? Is that Windsurf policy or Cognition policy or Google policy? "I was ultimat…

Writing for LinkedIn metrics means never having to make an understandable statement that someone could take exception to.

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#62

Post by mikestew »

cyanydeez wrote: post #37
crazygringo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, that helps! But so did he keep the shares or take the payout? Is the 1% payout an accurate reflection of Windsurf's value after having lost so many valuable employees? And why didn't he take the Google job? Was the 1% contingent on taking the Google job? But how could it be, since Google doesn't own Windsurf/Cognition? But if it did somehow, did it have a higher paycheck to compensate? Or was it contingent…

the board strokes is: Google should have bought the company. They didnt. They basically bought the employees. They call it a "acquihire". Without these employees, the real value of the company fell, allowing cognition to buy the company. Had the employee taken employement with Google, it's likely their shares in windsurf would have been voided, or otherwise not vested. Who knows, these private corporations are often…

Google should have bought the company. They didnt. They basically bought the employees. They call it a "acquihire".

That's just called "hiring". In order to "acquire-hire" employees of the target company, one must first "acquire" the company and the "hiring" part just comes along with the deal. In this case, Google skipped the "acquire" part.

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#63

Post by sarchertech »

lokar wrote: post #55
nocoiner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. How did the Windsurf investors feel about that?

They got paid out as well. Meta pulled the same thing recently. So, a new trend where big tech “buys out” a startup in a way that only early VCs, founders and top managers get any value.

Seems like that makes options completely useless. If they had actual shares they could at least sue because majority shareholders have a duty not to completely screw over the minority.

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#64

Post by IncreasePosts »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #29
nevon wrote: post #12

I must be misunderstanding what he is saying, but I can't figure out what. Once his shares have vested, they are his. What entity forced him to sell his shares for 1% of what they are worth and how could they possibly do that?

Google did a weird thing where they poached windsurf employees, licensed their tech and hired the CEO and upper management, leaving a shelled out company behind Looks like employees were given an exploding offer to join Google and sacrifice windsurf shares at a low valuation, or stick with windsurf If you stuck with windsurf you then joined cognition in a later acquisition

Why would they give the CEO a bunch of money to join Google, but not employee #2? Is it possible the CEO is just worth way more for what ever reason?

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#65

Post by lokar »

sarchertech wrote: post #63
lokar wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They got paid out as well. Meta pulled the same thing recently. So, a new trend where big tech “buys out” a startup in a way that only early VCs, founders and top managers get any value.

Seems like that makes options completely useless. If they had actual shares they could at least sue because majority shareholders have a duty not to completely screw over the minority.

It has always been possible (and sometimes happens) for VCs and mgmt to screw the early employees.

The question is will it become more common now?

Also, people equate these to aquihire deals. But they are not really. Most aquihire deals are when the company is out of runway, or it seems growth has slowed/stopped and there are no good ways out. There is not mucH value left.

Here there is clearly billions in value, it’s just not being distributed in the normal way.

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#66

Post by bagels »

KaiserPro wrote: post #60

I was aquihired by a FAANG. The headline "startup bought for x million" is almost always a lie, either direct or by omission. First, when a startup is bought, its generally not bought at the headline rate. So if you see a "bought for $45m" that doesn't mean People who own shares all got a % of 45m. That number is normally bullshit, but also a "total package" which include share offers for joining the new company. Thi…

1m isn't enough to really retire in in silicon valley

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#67

Post by rexreed »

TrackerFF wrote: post #7

Financially speaking, is it even worth joining a startup anymore? Compared to just going to any of the big companies. The latter will likely pay you more, with less risk involved. Seems like the best shot is to strive toward becoming financially independent, and then just go for the startup route and follow your passion. If you it doesn't work out, no big deal - if things turn out great, you'll just be even better of…

I am of the firm belief the solopreneurship is the future, especially with the power of AI. I don't believe corporations of any type, from startup to tech giant have the interests of anyone but the majority shareholders in mind. Employees, customers, partners, all get the shaft. When money is involved, startups aren't product companies, they're financial instruments.

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#68

Post by jschveibinz »

I am surprised that the employment agreements between execs/founders and Windsurf didn't address this. A cautious investor--or even a cautious key employee joining the team--would have locked the founders and key employees down to prevent them from being hired away without some recourse. This is especially important when all of the value was in the employees. There should be lawsuits forthcoming...

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#69

Post by charcircuit »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #51
nocoiner wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s like, what does vesting even mean? Was this a scenario where he lost them because some sort of “cause” event occurred, like leaving to work for a competitor? I can’t imagine that would even be valid under CA law? I’m not even sure who was forcing him to forfeit his shares…

Vest has two meanings: If it's a stock option, then it means you have the ability to purchase a share at a pre-determined price, no matter the current public price of the stock (or even if there is no public price). If it's a Restricted Stock Unit, it means you own that share.

The author refers to them as "my shares" which implies he has possession of the shares.

Re: Windsurf employee #2: I was given a payout of only 1% what my shares where worth

#70

Post by toomuchtodo »

jschveibinz wrote: post #68

I am surprised that the employment agreements between execs/founders and Windsurf didn't address this. A cautious investor--or even a cautious key employee joining the team--would have locked the founders and key employees down to prevent them from being hired away without some recourse. This is especially important when all of the value was in the employees. There should be lawsuits forthcoming...

Non competes are illegal in California, there is no legal way investors can lock founders and employees down. This is venture capital investment risk. The employees, who are most of the value (aside from potential IP and customer contracts), can walk at any time.
Post reply on HN