4 ms·
I don't think blame is relevant, they haven't done anything wrong, just potentially not ideal for themselves. If you're coming from the point of thinking that y
by Trundle 11y ago
I don't think blame is relevant, they haven't done anything wrong, just potentially not ideal for themselves. If you're coming from the point of thinking that you know better than the employees on how to achieve their goals, and that they shouldn't be gambling their time hoping for a hugely successful company, then your argument does make sense.
However if that's the case, it looks like you've just used a lot of words to effectively say "Accepting equity as payment for working at a startup is a poor decision so therefore employee interests were never aligned with those of the founders".
- jacquesm 11y ago> If you're coming from the point of thinking that you know better than the employees on how to achieve their goals, and that they shouldn't be gambling their time hoping for a hugely successful company, then your argument does make sense. I'm perfectly ok with it if employees were actually given all the relevant bits of information and if they actually were aware of all the potential outcomes. There is a lot of selling going on here that I'm not ok with. And yes, I've used a lot of words to say exactly that. Thank you for putting it more concisely, the risk:reward ratio for employees and founders is vastly different. Founders 'risk everything' but looked at in a different way founders risk just as much - their time, and the potential upside for a founder is much, much larger than for an early employee. Oldest game in town.