5 ms·
So what you're saying is that more people should start companies? Maybe you're on to something...
by mrdrozdov 11y ago
So what you're saying is that more people should start companies? Maybe you're on to something...
- akg_67 11y agoBeing acquihired by the startup is much better than being early employees of same startup
- kzhahou 11y agoHe is calling something out as unfair, and your response is that more people should be unfair?
- jerguismi 11y agoYeah because being a founder equals to being unfair, always.
- mrdrozdov 11y agoI don't think that what the article describes is a balance of fairness, rather an observation that employees are taking a lot of risk! The message to me is that you should probably think twice before joining a company. This is not a one-sided battle. Employees clearly have the power to start their own company, avoid risk, and reap the same rewards that so many founders are achieving. Over time, if enough people are starting companies, then risk will have to be shifted back in the direction of founders and becoming an employee will become more appealing.
- kzhahou 11y agoThe opening paragraph: > Why are we still using old 1990’s cap tables and the same tiny option grants for employees as we did back then? Is that fair? To whom? Is it the right thing to do? I don’t think so. We're talking about fairness. Not the abstract elementary-school concept, but simply that employee equity compensation should not be wildly disproportionate to their risk (and, this is not counter-balanced by their salary or perks).