Each of those employees signed up for a salary and equity.
That equity turned out to be of very little value to them in the end, probably less than they were hoping for.
If they all got paid out anyway, they would not have learned that small equity stakes can turn out meaningless, and that exits are way less profitable for employees then founders.
Some of these employees might now go on to be founders because they learned the dangers of working hard on something in which there is no equity. In the end they might create something of massive value, which the world never would have had if they simply benefited from charity.
I think the lesson of this exit is also more valuable for all HN readers than it would've been if he had just paid out the employees, for the same reasons.
They might then go on to create something of massive value which the world never would have had if they simply did not have the financial means to do so.
Remembering the "charity" they received in helping build the business that enabled them to succeed as founders they then pass that same "charity" on to their own employees upon a successful exit, kickstarting a cycle of innovation that spreads much farther.
There's an argument that "that's not the way the world is" but the world is as compassionate or dispassionate as we make it. Personally I'd like to see it move towards a point where taking everything just because you can isn't viewed as acceptable.
It's not clear to me what you're actually suggesting.
You think that when someone takes more than they need, they deserve to be shamed? How do you determine how much one can take?
We all want the world to be more loving and compassionate, but rules and financial incentives drive productivity in our economy. If the financial incentive to start a company is reduced, there will necessarily be a cost to innovation.
Imo, the goal should be creating a system where the rules are fair and clearly outlined. The rules and incentives for employment were very clearly outlined in the employment contract these people signed. And, the founder does not seem to be the type of person who over-promises. So, I see nothing wrong here.
I think I understand your reasoning but I don't agree with it. It implies that workers don't already know they're in a much worse position compared to founders/business owners when it comes to acquisitions. Generally it suggests that workers "learn" through pain until they become founders. Which might apply to some people but certainly isn't the case for everyone, let alone a good reason to treat your workers badly. I much more agree with the sibling comment by Jochim.
