←back to thread

656 points mooreds | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.928s | source | bottom
Show context
cj ◴[] No.43675640[source]
As our 30 person startup has grown, I made a conscious decision to stop pitching stock options as a primary component of compensation.

Which means the job offer still includes stock options, but during the job offer call we don’t talk up the future value of the stock options. We don’t create any expectation that the options will be worth anything.

Upside from a founder perspective is we end up giving away less equity than we otherwise might. Downside from a founder perspective is you need up increase cash compensation to close the gap in some cases, where you might otherwise talk up the value of options.

Main upside for the employee is they don’t need to worry too much about stock options intricacies because they don’t view them as a primary aspect of their compensation.

In my experience, almost everyone prefers cash over startup stock options. And from an employee perspective, it’s almost always the right decision to place very little value ($0) on the stock option component of your offer. The vast majority of cases stock options end up worthless.

replies(19): >>43675676 #>>43675759 #>>43675967 #>>43676111 #>>43676216 #>>43676383 #>>43676450 #>>43676463 #>>43676503 #>>43676526 #>>43676834 #>>43676885 #>>43676986 #>>43677139 #>>43677589 #>>43678377 #>>43679184 #>>43680072 #>>43684272 #
__turbobrew__ ◴[] No.43675759[source]
Even if the company has a successful exit lots of times the founders have different stock class than employees which allows them to cook the books in creative ways where employee stocks are devalued without affecting founder stocks.

I personally went through a successful exit of a company where I was one of the early engineers and was privy to orchestrating the sale (working with potential buyers and consultants) and saw this happen.

I now am granted stocks which are traded on the NYSE so nobody can cook the books without commiting securities fraud.

replies(7): >>43675832 #>>43676272 #>>43676802 #>>43676851 #>>43677057 #>>43678735 #>>43680644 #
carimura ◴[] No.43675832[source]
"Cooking the books" could mean many things but most people would interpret this as fraud. There are many exit scenarios that aren't fraud but rather stacks of preferential stock that get paid before common, who usually get paid last.

What happened in your exit scenario?

replies(5): >>43675899 #>>43676096 #>>43676425 #>>43676491 #>>43679599 #
awesome_dude ◴[] No.43675899[source]
My read is that the poster felt that the accounting practices, which were likely legal and commonplace, violated implied contractual obligations.
replies(4): >>43675984 #>>43676408 #>>43676804 #>>43677234 #
1. Viliam1234 ◴[] No.43675984[source]
It's technically legal -- the best kind of legal!
replies(1): >>43676740 #
2. fragmede ◴[] No.43676740[source]
No. Fuck that shit. When the spirit of the law and the letter of the law conflict, I want us as humans to be able to step back and say that, hey, it doesn't make sense when you put it that way, and ignore the rules and do what's actually right.
replies(2): >>43677023 #>>43680700 #
3. dpc050505 ◴[] No.43677023[source]
As someone living in a country with common law and having taking business law 101 (so certainly NAL) this sometimes ends up being a bit of a guessing game as to how a judge will interpret jurisprudence.

There's a lot of room for improvement in legal systems and they move extremely slow due to the political nature of things.

replies(2): >>43677039 #>>43677296 #
4. fragmede ◴[] No.43677039{3}[source]
totally, which is why we go to a jury of peers for things
5. cyanydeez ◴[] No.43677296{3}[source]
wouldn't you rather the 50/50 chance for some _seemingly_ impartial person to intepret a deal, than have to pay a lawyer more than somethings worth to enforce some complex 500 page word salad to keep a business run by a person whose dones this hundreds of times before?
6. pc86 ◴[] No.43680700[source]
Ah yes the cornerstone of any stable judiciary - "ignore the rules and do [what I want]."