Don't just accept promises. Ask for the 409A valuation, liquidation preferences, and pay bands. If a company won’t provide transparency, that’s your signal.
Equity is a lottery ticket. Salary is money in the bank.
My equity from 4 years ( employee ~60, grew to over 500 ): worthless. No one is able to exercise any options. They also readjusted when the valuation came below the total raised, making the value of my vested shares ~$13k ( down from ~$200,000 ) . They 'made us whole' by giving more shares with a new 4 year vesting schedule.
Startups have found ways to fuck everyone but the investors with equity. It's confederate dollars; funny money. Maybe some people get great deals, I don't know. From my limited experience at very successful startups, the only people who made real money were those able to parley huge bonuses or base salaries.
Work for good people with a history of moral dealing. A family member just had a life-changing payout because leadership was generous. A friend walked away from a company pre-pivot without equity for what became one of the decade's biggest acquisitions.
This stuff is lottery tickets, but real ones. You need to be smart about who you make your limited bets on.
And agreed, big cautionary note here shows that Windsurf having "founder-friendly" investors does NOT mean employee-friendly ones.
The only good reasons to do so are if you want to learn or make contacts so that you can found your own startup later.
In my pensive moments, one of the things about humans that makes me go "god damn" is how little money it takes for insanely talented people to just come and work for you.
Hey, at least he’s taking his LARPing as a douchebag ceo seriously. Easy vip invite for DND nights.
I had the option to sell some equity recently but it would have only been like $16K USD so I held... I had about $9K taken out of my salary to pay for those so it doesn't make sense to sell given the massive growth the app and not that much dilution... The financial gain barely covers the inflation.
It feels like both revenue and profits have been kept artificially low. $6.5 million per year revenue, still growing steadily, with a loyal customer base with 10% profit seems really good... A valuation of $8 million seems ridiculously low... Not even 2x revenue, for a tech platform with good lock-in factor (they sell a lot of licenses to schools)!
It's kind of amazing how bad a deal it is to work for someone else as an employee. Even if the founder is good and generous in many ways and the business side (which you have little control over as a developer) happens to work out pretty well, they can still pull all sorts of levers to make the deal bad. With this one, I'm going to wait it out 20 years if I must. A lot of the game is just timing, you gotta wait it out, sell at the top... Some people see a peak opportunity to cash-in multiple times in their lives, some people never see it! In my case, I haven't seen the top yet.
I never had any opportunity to make serious money ever. Never had an opportunity to pull the trigger and make even $100K. The best I ever got was in crypto, my crypto was worth $100K but I was earning like 100% annual yield and required a 1-month unlock period. So I made more than that by holding it for 3 years anyway...
I think my career story so far is quite interesting. Probably more interesting than 99% of the classic SV startup stories (at least what they say publicly). I've done some things nobody else has done. Made money in truly adverse environments where a lot of people hated my guts. I've seen people behave in strange ways. At times, I felt like I was almost breaking through the membrane of 'the matrix'; almost transcending my social class. But all I got for it was 3 years of passive income. I never had the opportunity to cash out big.
It's tough out there, so tough, it often feels fake/artificial. Often, it feels like you have to be 'chosen' and that's all that matters. Your work doesn't matter, how talented you are doesn't matter, how lucky you get doesn't matter (besides the luck of 'being chosen').
At the end of the day, money is like a river and people upstream from you get to decide whether or not the river will flow in your direction. When you understand that new money is created constantly and, just like the river, the water cycles between the mountain and the sea, you start to understand the value of positioning and 'being selected'. The people upstream will keep telling you that they don't control the flow of money; that the river flows naturally through the lowest valleys... It's your job to put yourself in that low valley... But really, they've built massive dams up there directing the water almost arbitrarily. You may be at the lowest valley but they're redirecting the water elsewhere artificially because it suits them better. Reality is that they can easily alter the path of the river anywhere they want and it has little to do with 'building something people want'. It's about building something the people upstream want... And sometimes they just want to help their existing friends; unfortunate for you if you are not their friend.
It's a catch-22; you need rich friends to get money but you need money to get rich friends. But I suspect it's way easier for a poor person to get rich by befriending a rich person than it is for a poor person to get rich without rich friends. The second approach feels like you're piercing through 'the matrix' because of all the weird almost conspiratorial resistance you might get (tech feels like one big club).
Sometimes you might accumulate some dirt on some rich people and that gives you some leverage over them but it's the kind of leverage where you have to keep coming back to them to get crumbs. I feel like you can never break through that way due to regulatory capture. You can only do limited damage to them and it's always costly to you. They still have the balance of power.
This becomes truer and truer the more of an employee and the less agency over the company's choices you have, but generally if you're not a co-founder (founding engineer doesn't count) equity traded off against salary is someone scamming you.
Not very good incentive or compensation, if you have to value it at $0.
the much bigger motivation is "keep the company afloat so i can keep drawing my salary", so just boring old non-equity paychecks provide plenty of motivation.
if you're an employee that thinks your contributions are so great that you are single-handedly juicing the stock price or valuation, you're probably wrong but if not... you should probably take those skills and found your own startup.
You can almost never get any info on equity until it's too late and you realize it's worth nothing.
Those questions are certainly worth asking but employees should also keep in mind that even if they do share that information your equity can still later be diluted away to worthlessness.
"Wanted to hire me" as in they made an offer, or an earlier step? At offer stage, I've never had a company refuse to answer these questions. I don't have "dozens of companies" worth of experience though, maybe one dozen if that.
Yeah, because that is in your interests, not the engineer's.
They offered to sell me more shares
I countered that I'd been trying to dump the shares they already gave me and if the shares are truly worth X dollars they should buy them back from me
Anyway glad I quit
I always take more equity. I wouldn't work for you in the first place if I didn't believe in your equity.
Sure, if you don't want to take a risk then look for a higher salary, and probably at a more established company because even if you have mostly salary and little equity a startup is still risky (and you're making it even more so by putting cash pressure on the company at that stage).
On the other hand, if you want a chance at a bigger payout, you'll want more equity. And yes, you may well not get that payout.
Stock options were always a lottery. But this takes the shenanigans to a whole new level.
Ask HN: How to negotiate stock options? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28401655 - September 2021
It's always worth offering to take equity as long as they agree in writing to not ever dilute your shares and vest them immediately. However, it's unlikely that any company will agree.
It's best to imagine compensation as exactly one's salary. Then (virtually) all surprises are good.
Well, yes, because that’s insane.
I feel like I understand _what_ an RSU is and what options are, but are there any good resources for me to learn from?
Options go to zero much more often.
So you're working at this startup. Lets say it's worth $10 million. To make things simple, in this company, there are 2 people, the fucker, the CEO, the guy that started it all. He holds 90,000 RSUs, each worth $100, so $9 million, and the fuckee, you, who holds 10,000 RSUs, each worth $100, for a cool million.
Here's where the fucker fucks the fuckee, ie you. The company does a round, and then creates, out of thin air, a billion shares (1,000,000,000), and issues them to the new investors. Lets say the company reached unicorn status this round, which is to say a valuation of a billion.
Holy hell a billion! But wait now there's 1,000,100,000 total shares out there, and the valuation of a billion, divided by the new shares, means that each share, of which you only have 10,000 of, is now worth just under one dollar.
That's right, your $1 million just turned into $10,000. Which isn't nothing, I'd love to come across a random $10k I didn't know I had. But that's just, like, one really nice vacation for you and the kids, which you haven't seen enough of because you've been working so hard at this startup, and not, like, a college fund for the kid that's showing aptitude at engineering and that you were hoping was gonna go to MIT.
Dilution is inevitable, there's no avoiding it. The scenario I presented is just to show you an example of how dilution fucks you. If things go well, would you rather have 10% of $1 million or 0.1% of $1 billion?
For more, it depends on how you like your information. ChatGPT's got stuff like ISOs vs NSOs pretty well covered, Investopedia's got a lot of good stuff if you'd rather it that way.
First a 409A is generally engineered to keep the lowest value possible in order to allow the employees to exercise their options at the lowest value via an 83b election so at an exit they can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate. When someone joins a startup and is issued options the value of the stock is set via the 409A (which has to be renewed every year). The lower the number the more likely an employee can afford to write the check. 100K shares at $0.01 vs at $0.25 is a major factor for anyone to consider. Any startup worth their damn will make sure the facts in any 409A fit a low number for that reason. The reality of an exit where you are acquired will be based on other numbers that optimize for forward earns and value of your team and tech.
The questions you need to ask are:
What is the total authorized shares? What is the required process to raise that number? How are we funded? Does funding include preferred shares? What is the preference on those shares? On an exit what is the payment order?
I agree about the salary bands and at my current company we provide them, as well as answering all the questions above upfront to any candidate with an offer.
The reality of windsurf is that the founders are scum and this is going to end up in court for years. Google should be ashamed.
The only time it ever makes sense to push for more salary instead is if you literally cannot get a job at a public company (or even a near IPO unicorn). Plenty of startup employees can, so clearly they believe their startup equity is worth something.
Financially speaking, startup equity is actually worth a lot as an employee (https://www.amafinance.org/startup_comp/). Yah, over 50% it's going nowhere but expectation needs to consider how huge the win is even if it is lower probability.
It seems like you're saying: if you choose to work for a startup rather than a bigger company, it must be because you think their equity is valuable, so you should prefer to take more of your pay in the form of equity if you can.
But there are plenty of other reasons for choosing to work at a startup.
You might have chosen to work at that particular startup because the work interests you. You might prefer startups to bigger companies because they have less bureaucracy and can do (some) things faster. You might prefer startups to bigger companies because there are fewer layers of management above you and so you have a better view of why you're doing what you're doing.
Even if you're only in it for the money, I don't think your argument is valid, though this is more of a nitpick: it might happen that a startup particularly wants you or at least your skillset and is willing to pay more for it than any bigger company you've found. You might think the startup is likely to fail, but still prefer being paid twice as much. (This is kinda nitpicky because I don't think this situation is super-common, unlike the other ones I mentioned above.)
This is why you would never see an early stage investor invest in only one company. They need volume to be able to survive the high risk/high reward nature of startup investing.
Now, maybe you think you are a better judge of the probability of success for your startup than an investor, so the risk is lower. You would be wrong; if there was a way to reliably predict which startup would hit it big, then investors (who spend all their time trying to predict exactly that, and have a lot more data and history to use in their evaluation than you do as an employee) would have a much higher success rate.
So even if you have a very promising startup, your equity is a huge risk. Your company probably won’t hit it big, and if it does you have to hope you aren’t screwed out of your equity by the millions of tricks they use to screw employee shareholders; dilution, preferred shares, etc.
Even worse, you are taking double risk. Your startup is risking both your equity AND your salary. You want to diversify your risk, so you can use your investment when your salary fails and use your salary when your investment fails. In this case, those both will fail together if your company doesn’t make it.
Look, equity and stock options are great, but you REALLY have to discount its value as an employee because of the way the risk shakes out as an employee.
yes that's literally the definition of expectation value...... so
ev = 1 bagillion * 0.0000000000000001 = ~0
I know a few people who did well working for unicorns, but that isn't most startups, and pretending that any given startup will be one is selling yourself short.
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.
This means you will get say 1% of the headline buyout now, and then golden handcuffs to get the rest.
Also, it makes no sense to give employees that much money upfront. After all, if I'd been given $1m in one go, I wouldn't be fucking working now.
When we were talking to various companies about acquiring Sandstorm.io (my startup) in 2017, one of the companies told me, essentially: "We aren't interested in your IP, only the employees. We'll give you a set of job offers for them. We will then sum up the salary and equity grants from these offers, and call that the acquisition price. If you want to take some of that money and redirect it to your investors instead, that is up to you."
I was a bit taken aback. Obviously I wasn't about to take a cut of my employees' future comp and give it to investors.
Instead we ended up going to Cloudflare, but not as an acquisition. Cloudflare told us very honestly that they couldn't justify buying the IP, but they would be willing to acquire the company for $0 to wind it down for us. I decided to just take the job offers but keep the company independent as an open source side project, thinking maybe I'd revive it eventually. Turned out to be a mistake as some guy who was mad we didn't hire him sued Sandstorm six months later, and that was then my problem instead of Cloudflare's, oops. Should have sold for $0.
(Once it became clear to the plaintiff('s lawyer) that we weren't going to settle, they stopped pushing the case forward, but didn't drop it, so it just sat in limbo for 5 years before the judge finally threw it out it 2022. Meanwhile I couldn't dissolve the company and had to keep filing taxes for it. Ugh... lessons learned.)
Generally, when a startup is acquired, people get paid in a number of tranches:
- First, debts get cleared in order according to debt types. This could be cloud providers, lawyers, employees who deferred salary, etc, etc. If there's still cash left..
- Then preferred (generally earliest) investors get paid back. Some investors will have liquidation preferences where they get 2-5X their initial investment. If there's still cash left..
- Then execs get their preferred shares cashed out. Depending on how many rounds they'd raised, they may own less than you think. If there's still cash left..
- Finally, general stockholders get paid. This is where most employees may actually get cash.
To further complicate things, some people could be in multiple places here. A founding exec may have lent the company money to get started, have preferred shares, and have common shares so they could get paid out in early levels but not at the end.
*There are WAY MORE nuances in this but the point is: You don't just say "total price divided by shares times number of shares = the cash you get"
Unless you already had several other million saved already, I bet you’d be working again.
There's very few currencies in the world in which 1M isn't enough to retire. USD isn't one of them.
Commendable of them. That should be normal decency by leaders. I wonder how common it is.
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 ultimately given a payout of only 1% of what my shares would have been worth at the time of the deal." So he took the payout and forfeited the shares? "In going to Cognition, I’ve chosen a different direction." Or not, he rejected the payout and kept the shares? I can't even tell what's hypothetical versus what actually happened.
I literally don't understand a single thing about this tweet. I've read all the comments here so far and my confusion seems to be shared. Can anyone who has context please help explain what's actually going on? And particularly how any company could force you to forfeit vested shares in a company?
Google poached windsurf employees and licensed their tech, paying out billions to upper management but apparently offering a fraction of the value of shares
This employee chose to stick with windsurf instead of moving to Google
Windsurf was then acquired by cognition for an unspecified but probably quite low amount
So this employee is now at cognition
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 on staying at Windsurf/Cognition?
This thing needs an in-depth blog post analysis. The tweet by itself isn't providing even close to the information necessary to understand what's actually going on.
Smells like a strong bias against employees in favor of management and founders.
These are those people. Oil and railroads were high technology too.
They want you to think they’re Lazlo Hollyfield, but they’re Daniel Plainview.
Even if the OP considers the full headline number of $2.4b to be the value of the company, and taking his "1% of fair" number as truth, seven figure payouts would imply all 40 founding engineers had >4% equity which is nonsensical.
Let’s do a simple math. Assume this employee gets 5% of the company (which is super unlikely, but let’s go with it), that is 150m for what could be worth if OpenAI deal went through. 1% of that would be 1.5m.
That is still 7 figure. But this person spent 3 years in a startup, which turned out to be a unicorn and super highly successful, and he bagged a FAANG salary man pay at the end of the deal.
Basically this just proved startup model for normies are completely broken, if your goal is money, don’t join a startup
Who is gonna want to work at a startup in a non-founder role after this and Scale AI?
This continuing degradation of, and flagrant disregard for social norms is destructive for society.
Nevermind that $1m over ~4 years is approximately the same as the differential other public tech co's pay. ($150k + equity at YC co, $350k TC at G/Amzn/FB/Uber/etc.) So when they tell everyone they should work at YC co's, they're saying they're proud when in the absolute best case scenario you make just as much as at the public co's they rail against working for.
If you want to come across as genuine, directly say how much % of the payout went to employees that weren't the founders. They won't, because it's likely 3%, which correctly sounds horrible
that matches my experience working at 2 non-public venture funded companies.
For his assertion to be right, 40 people need to get paid out at least 1 million. That's 1.67% of the company or 0.04% evenly. Its not hard for me to image that up to 10% of this cap table was distributed among the 40 people.
Who did you hear it from Garry, the founder that made out with all the money ? Or the other VC that made a few hundred million from the sale and stands to gain even more if the lie of "founding engineers get rewarded" is perpetuated?
Forty founding engineers? Seriously?
They must have a very expansive definition of founder.
1. It's relatively chill and you value the stability. You deliver competence from 9-5 then go home to your family or some other thing that's more important to you than work.
2. You really enjoy the pure engineering side and find meaning in the technical artifact you're creating. Probably it's open source and has some value/community outside of your employer.
3. You're gaining valuable experience that you can later leverage into something else. Probably you're in the first 5 years of your career.
If the main thing driving you is growing a business, and you don't directly own (not options or RSUs or whatever, actual real equity) a significant slice of it, you are very likely misdirecting your energy.
(I guess there are also cases where the mission of your organisation is not profit and you care about that. I don't know any engineers in this position but I might be quite happy working in the public sector).
If you’re instantly replaceable by any dime-a-dozen engineer than can install packages on npm and use react components and add a thumbs up to slack messages…to not get accidentally rich because you just took a high paid tech job a year ago…seems fair?
I just fail to see why everyone in the comments here believes they deserve to be compensated at the level of the top 0.01% of all people without starting their own business.
Start your own company if you think it’s so easy to be a founder instead of an employee. Nobody is stopping you.
I also think it’s some crazy cognitive dissonance to assume you’d be able to walk right into a FAANG sr. eng gig instead. As if most startup employees haven’t tried before joining [insert startup].
If I join a lottery syndicate and it wins 100m but I only put in 1% of the syndicate amount say $100 do I not deserve $1m because I'm just a "whatever I am just"???
No one is saying this.
There is no question that the Windsurf and Scale AI ploys effectively left employees with ownership in the company high and dry.
> but how much do you think you deserve as an employee
You deserve what you are promised. If a founder says you will get rich if the company goes to the moon, and they instead do some strange maneuver so only they cash out, the founder is a scumbag.
You are acting like early startup employees risk nothing working for a startup, and invest nothing of their own. Again, that is a weird assumption.
YC isn't particularly great here either, they are pro founder but not pro startup employee. Most YC companies offer pretty paltry equity to even the first few hires - and that is even assuming you aren't going to get screwed down the line.
That's when you get a real job at a very boring stable company and stop being delusional.
Yeah, the hours can be crazy but not too often. Yes, you're expected to give your best all the time but that's part of the fun. And the best part is the challenges are always interesting.
Maybe it makes it easier for me that I'm not at all interested in normal family life and never want to have kids.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/11/us-startups-have-a-liquidi...
I’m not sure customer churn rate has any impact on liquidation preference.
They had plenty of value left even after getting gutted.
In negotiations I tried to get more salary, by taking less equity. It kinda worked, but later they doubled my equity to match other hires of the same era (but with a new vesting schedule for the new options). Then at some point I was fired without reason. The company went on to become worth a lot, and I was able to get out with enough to never work again and live pretty luxuriously. AFAIK others that were in my era at this startup did equally well, or many times better. It can happen, but I didn't ever think it was even possible because I didn't understand what 'options' even were when I was hired.
No one really knows how the game is played
The art of the trade
How the sausage gets made
We just assume that it happens
But no one else is in the room where it happens
Would be curious to see the breakdown of the $2.4b:
1. How much to the founders in Google employment incentives
2. How much in licensing fee to the company itself
3. How of the licensing fee went to immediate payout to VC investors (+ employees)
4. How much got left on the balance sheet of the remaining company
I don't understand how #3 can be so large and common stock holders walk away with almost nothing without breaching fiduciary duty?
Fiduciary duty is very low bar. Management has to act in the best interests of The Company, as in, as a whole. The company != #2. Lawyers are not taking this case.
I'm certain the accounting was done properly, maybe even by a Perl script, and this is how it penciled out. The question for us stiffs is what can we learn from it?
Great song from Hamilton. Sorry for being off topic.
https://x.com/apartovi/status/1948444826674102732
bad look all around.
I got a payout on acquisition by a FAANG+ (as first employee). It was only 300K but I put 50K of that into Nvidia. Actually I invested all my payout from my startup stock into tech stocks. And I got a terrific golden handcuffs deal.
After that I could afford to retire and I did.
Deep appreciation to everyone who shared their story, thank you!
This is coming from someone who programs for a living: contrary to what you are saying, the money guys take too little equity. The money guy being, the reason you are raising money at all, and not just dipping into your own savings.
> I was given an offer that would explode same day. I had to forfeit all of my vested shares earned over my 3.5+ years at Windsurf.
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…
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
I think if I understand what he is saying he could either stick with the product and team giving up the shares, or keep the shares and try his luck getting money for them another way.
I appreciate that his choice shows that he is in it for the product and the team, but also ouch.
> I was given an offer that would explode same day. I had to forfeit all of my vested shares earned over my 3.5+ years at Windsurf. I was ultimately given a payout of only 1% of what my shares would have been worth at the time of the deal.
Was forfeiting the vested shares conditional on accepting the offer, or did he have no choice over the matter? Was the payout what he was offered as part of accepting the deal, or was that his consolation for not accepting it? The wording is genuinely unclear to me.
I literally see 3 interpretations here:
1. Offer was to forfeit shares in exchange for 1% payout, but OP rejected and still has shares
2. Offer was to forfeit shares in exchange for undisclosed payout, but OP rejected and got 1% payout instead and still has shares
3. He had to forfeit shares regardless of accepting offer, got 1% payout
(1) and (3) are both shitty offers from Google, but (2) is reasonable. Exploding offers are not uncommon in tech acquisitions. My guess is that (2) is what happened, since that's not in contradiction with prior reporting.
Presumably they told him his shares would be worthless anyway an if he didn't take this "great offer" it would expire when he left the room and he would get nothing...
...and he fell for it.
It wasn't dilution of other things people are talking about here... those things happen but this guy straight up just got had.
So sure equity is worthless... if you sign it away.
Think like an investor. Would you back this person? Are they ethical? Are they resilient?
Also stock options should not be high on the list. Most startups fail before founders or VCs even get the chance to screw you over. In 99% of cases, nobody wins.
it's not uncommon that a regular salary from a big tech in the bay area would amount to ~$2M total after 4 years (considering stock appreciation).
if you were given 1% of equity of the startup then start up has to worth $200M after 4 years. or more likely you would be given 0.1% of equity of the startup, and then it has to worth more than $2B, in order for it to make sense for you.
how likely is that going to happen?
This is indeed venture capital risk, but this case lays bare the exorbitant amount of risk for investing in these types of companies--perhaps especially in California?
Because right now, there has been too much innovation in ways to screw over employees and the only reasonable assumption is that equity will vanish.
- Did he take the offer or not? - Did he forfeit the vested shares because he took the offer or because he didn't? - What was he offered in return for forfeiting the vested shares? - Did he get a payout of 1% because he took the offer or because he didn't? - The 1% comment implies that Google didn't use the $2.4B to buy the shares of Windsurf; if not shares, then what did Google get in return?
Original citation: "I was given an offer that would explode same day. I had to forfeit all of my vested shares earned over my 3.5+ years at Windsurf. I was ultimately given a payout of only 1% of what my shares would have been worth at the time of the deal."
Nothing has substantially improved since the article was written. With “forever private” companies it’s only gotten worse.
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 off.
At least in my anecdotal experience, everytime I’ve entertained a startups offer in the past decade it’s been either something like engineer #1, 3% equity and no you cannot see the cap table or other agreements with investors, or something like 10k units at 25 a share when we’re on series z, and you lose them if you leave, and you can’t sell for 6 months if you leave, and the investors have priority on payment if we sell for less than our valuation and yadda yadda yadda.
I mentally just valued the equity as 0 in the compensation with all those limitations on liquidating them and never understood why anyone joined a startup
The only thing that changed recently is the "unicorns" stopped happening altogether.
This is what I’m trying to do now. Having worked in startups and big tech; I think the best thing one can do is to attempt to forge their own path. For independence, financial gain and sanity
You will get a regular salary, with occasional performance bonus, just like any regular company, with all the action a startup requires.
You're assuming someone joins a startup when they could join a big company. It's an exceptional occurrence.
That said...
Don't be a fool for all these AI startups that want you to burn out on 100 hour weeks. Many YC and non-YC startups are using this bravado based hiring strategy trying to get cheap labour to fuel their rockets to the moon. Don't be no fool!
It was a fuckover.
Shame on the VCs who got paid out allowing this to happen.
If you’re not a good judge of people you should work somewhere that pays cash
Many interesting, and probably true, replies about investors cheating out employees, but it seems very few people read the actual post.
Essentially options for good (but not great) sr engineers are
1. Get 120k salary in Europe (on higher end)
2. 500k at FAANG in US (salary + RSU)
3. ~200k at startup in US + lottery tickets
Both option 2 and 3 strictly beat option 1 (especially after taxes) so European should get off the high horse and recognize reality that they are poor and exploited by companies and government.
If I was a venture capitalist dependent on 20-somethings believing in the dream I sold them maybe I wouldn’t write snarky replies on them on Twitter when this happens and actually look into fixing things for early employees (like, maybe, giving them similar terms that the founders get), but that’s just me I guess.
If no founders can be trusted, sweat equity partnerships will become rare. If the only people who can build companies are VC funded founders who hire employees who treat the whole thing like a game, there will not be a good crop of companies to come out of that environment.
Founding is freaking hard. It needs to be reliably and fairly rewarded. Otherwise the people trying to bootstrap and make things happen have nowhere to go if the idea they are completely convinced MUST be built is also a hard hard sell to VC hive minds... because it's too oddly shaped (innovative).
We all have an interest to put the instruments and paperwork into place to make stories like this NOT happen so that sweat equity startups founded on personal convictions and strong cooperative incentive alignment will happen.
Cash is king - never work for free or let some overzealous founder (who has tons of equity and is ok working for poverty wages) try to encourage you to work longer or harder "because equity go up one day".
The founders of Windsurf are clearly horrible people and the fact they were DM'ing people on twitter trying to explain being awful people really reflects the current state of the valley.
Garry Tan even deleted a comment on this tweet where to Windsurf employee #2 he said "looks like you left $20M on the table". These people see employees as replaceable widgets and to them this is just a game build around the "excitement of building".
Legitimately F*CK these people.
Not all places with large existing codebases are that bad, but if you are experienced, it can be very personally satisfying doing something well before it has degraded over time.
I have worked in quite a few. One is a household name down here in Australia. I was the first engineer with the two founders. I worked 2 years 24/7 for half the salary I got when I left. I'll never get my money back but that's ok as I loved the time there.
Presumably you have a lot more control and freedom to do things how you want than at a large company with a lot of red tape etc.
That's the main reason I would do it.
On average, startups tend to have a better culture due to the incentives at play compared to big-tech. And that attracts engineers regardless of the comp.
You get to make a nice payout for a VC. And isn't that all of our life goals?