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

Sprinklr Acquires GetSatisfaction, Founders Get Nothing

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 139 posts

Re: Sprinklr Acquires GetSatisfaction, Founders Get Nothing

#91

Post by tlogan »

danbmil99 wrote: post #86
MCRed wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VCs aren't assholes, generally, but their standard terms are a bad deal for founders, generally. I've thought about this a lot over the past 25 years. In the past I've seen VCs do really bad things (like force decisions that set the company back 18 months bad.) The problem is, when you get a "good" VC that doesn't force bad decisions on you ,the cost of the money, mostly in deal terms, is too damn high. And when you…

Nicely done. One problem that arises with the bootstrap-off-revenue model (assuming of course you are lucky enough to find product/market fit quickly, before you run through your seed money) is that you become vulnerable to company B that was willing to take crappy VC $$$ and is now able to kick your ass on price, right down to the freemium, eyeballs-are-value goose-egg giveaway. Free markets are always prone to a ra…

But there will be company C raising even more money and beating company B. And then comes Google and beats company C.

In short, if you are building a company you need to built it based on some "secret sauce". That could be your team. That could be your patent. That could be just customer base. That could be your unique understand of the market. But money is never "secret sauce".

And please do not take me wrong here: raising investment is very important to make your company big. But first thing first.

Re: Sprinklr Acquires GetSatisfaction, Founders Get Nothing

#92

Post by motoboi »

bduerst wrote: post #69
codinghorror wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be worse, could be a Yahoo Answers result.

At least you don't have to log in with a social network to see the answers.

I suppose you know that answers are on the bottom of the page. Right?

Re: Sprinklr Acquires GetSatisfaction, Founders Get Nothing

#93

Post by daemin »

prostoalex wrote: post #26
tomglindmeier wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I didn't know that. I understand that if expectations are not met there have to be consequences. But leaving the founders of a company with nothing while others earning money feels completely wrong.

I forgot about the debt holders. So if there was any debt (including un-converted convertible notes), the pecking order is: 1) Debt holders 2) Most senior shareholders and their liquidation preference 3) Less senior shareholders and their liquidation preference ... 99) Common stock holders This is actually to align the founder incentives in shooting for a big exit. Insert any other order of preferences, and the found…

So does this mean employees could be owed something in terms of debt (i.e. if they haven't had their benefits paid out fully) or are they what I assume:

100) Employees

Re: Sprinklr Acquires GetSatisfaction, Founders Get Nothing

#94

Post by cheepin »

bduerst wrote: post #69
codinghorror wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be worse, could be a Yahoo Answers result.

At least you don't have to log in with a social network to see the answers.

Here you go. Not super efficient, but a little bookmarklet to get rid of the most annoying things about Quora

javascript:(function(){function a(c){var e=document.getElementsByTagName('*'),i;for(i in e){if((' '+e[i].className+' ').indexOf(' '+c+' ')>-1){e[i].style.display="none";}}}a("modal_signup_background");a("modal_signup_dialog");a("modal_signup_facepile");})();

Re: Sprinklr Acquires GetSatisfaction, Founders Get Nothing

#96

Post by troels »

StavrosK wrote: post #27
MereInterest wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the spirit of inquisition, which "l" do you consider to be the extra one?

They're both about the same, but considering that "cl" is a sound by itself, I'd go with fuster cluck.

Also, removing the "l" from cluck would leave you with a word that still sounds obscene, making the whole process pointless.

Re: Sprinklr Acquires GetSatisfaction, Founders Get Nothing

#97

Post by troels »

daemin wrote: post #93
prostoalex wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forgot about the debt holders. So if there was any debt (including un-converted convertible notes), the pecking order is: 1) Debt holders 2) Most senior shareholders and their liquidation preference 3) Less senior shareholders and their liquidation preference ... 99) Common stock holders This is actually to align the founder incentives in shooting for a big exit. Insert any other order of preferences, and the found…

So does this mean employees could be owed something in terms of debt (i.e. if they haven't had their benefits paid out fully) or are they what I assume: 100) Employees

Depends on the jurisdiction of course, but generally salaries would be first in line.

Re: Sprinklr Acquires GetSatisfaction, Founders Get Nothing

#98

Post by cpach »

MCRed wrote: post #82
SwellJoe wrote: post #42

I have very limited knowledge of this situation, but, I'm gonna pile on anyway: With that kind of money raised, the founders didn't get "nothing". They got a salary, probably a decent one, for however long they were running the thing. Which is more than many startup founders get out of businesses that fail. If they don't have personal debt, or didn't lose relationships or friendships, they came out ahead of many star…

VCs aren't assholes, generally, but their standard terms are a bad deal for founders, generally. I've thought about this a lot over the past 25 years. In the past I've seen VCs do really bad things (like force decisions that set the company back 18 months bad.) The problem is, when you get a "good" VC that doesn't force bad decisions on you ,the cost of the money, mostly in deal terms, is too damn high. And when you…

”And I mean angel money on terms like the YC deferred-valuation deal that replaces convertible notes. (can't remember the name at the moment.)”

Do you mean safes? (Simple Agreement for Future Equity)

Re: Sprinklr Acquires GetSatisfaction, Founders Get Nothing

#99

Post by Rambunctious »

MCRed wrote: post #82
SwellJoe wrote: post #42

I have very limited knowledge of this situation, but, I'm gonna pile on anyway: With that kind of money raised, the founders didn't get "nothing". They got a salary, probably a decent one, for however long they were running the thing. Which is more than many startup founders get out of businesses that fail. If they don't have personal debt, or didn't lose relationships or friendships, they came out ahead of many star…

VCs aren't assholes, generally, but their standard terms are a bad deal for founders, generally. I've thought about this a lot over the past 25 years. In the past I've seen VCs do really bad things (like force decisions that set the company back 18 months bad.) The problem is, when you get a "good" VC that doesn't force bad decisions on you ,the cost of the money, mostly in deal terms, is too damn high. And when you…

> Don't even get me started on founders vesting their shares.

As an average Joe angel (not blessed with any inherited wealth), I personally think it's fair ask to ask founders to vest a "majority" of their shares. IMHO, if angels take 10% for a company in its infancy and leave founders with 90% vested equity, there is simply too much risk if one of the founders decides to leave! Especially so when the business itself hasn't really been properly built.

Re: Sprinklr Acquires GetSatisfaction, Founders Get Nothing

#100

Post by justincormack »

cheepin wrote: post #94
bduerst wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least you don't have to log in with a social network to see the answers.

Here you go. Not super efficient, but a little bookmarklet to get rid of the most annoying things about Quora javascript:(function(){function a(c){var e=document.getElementsByTagName('*'),i;for(i in e){if((' '+e[i].className+' ').indexOf(' '+c+' ')>-1){e[i].style.display="none";}}}a("modal_signup_background");a("modal_signup_dialog");a("modal_signup_facepile");})();

Easier just to ignore it completely, why should I waste my time on overriding their stupidity? Actually Google seem to be dropping them down the ranks, as I rarely see a Quora link now.
Post reply on HN