8 ms·

I cannot fathom why the majority of commentators here are automatically agreeing with Sam that Jeremy is in the wrong. If you look at the facts, it seems obvio

I cannot fathom why the majority of commentators here are automatically agreeing with Sam that Jeremy is in the wrong. If you look at the facts, it seems obvious that Jeremy is entitled to some compensation. He worked for the company for 1 month, without compensation. That would automatically entitle him to equity in the company. Now, they could have (and should have) signed a stock agreement with a cliff in it, but the did not. The cliff only exists if they agree to it. I have no idea what Jeremy is asking for, but it seems like he should absolutely be entitled to some equity. He never agreed to give up the equity he earned from working on it for a month. I suppose this underscores the importance of having legal agreements with anyone who works on your company, especially anyone you jointly apply to programs with.

codingdave 11y ago
I am assuming Jeremy is in the wrong because Kyle did offer him compensation. More than was fair, if we take Sam at his word. But Jeremy rejected that offer. I don't think people coming out of the woodwork to stake a claim is inherently wrong, IF they contributed to the effort, and IF they accept compensation that is offered. But if they did not truly contribute, or reject an offer, that crosses the line into just being greedy.
- ska 11y ago
  I am assuming Jeremy is in the wrong because Kyle did offer him compensation. "More than fair" could be doing a lot of work here, if the parties disagree on what it is for - if one side is thinking it's pretty good compensation for a couple of months work the other could be thinking it's a pretty lousy trade for x% of $bignum . Which says nothing about what is actually reasonable, in a given scenario.
- Swannie 11y ago
  Or the other way: I'm assuming that Kyle is in the wrong, because he made an offer, which could be construed as an admission that Jeremy is owed something.
- rpgmaker 11y ago
  Jeremy is left in what at first glance seems to be a scummy position but we live in the real world here and from the looks of it he does have a valid claim here. Sam says "Kyle made an extremely generous offer to settle this claim by offering to give Jeremy a lot of his own money." but Jeremy could be entitled to at least 10% of the company. Was Kyle offering him 100mil to settle the case? Doubtful. It sucks but this is what happens when you aren't careful. With that huge payday on the line any of us would've done what Jeremy is doing right now.
joslin01 11y ago
I like to think Sam is a relatively sane guy with good intentions. He seems to have wrote this to send a message, which means he believes in the principal of what he's doing, which is what makes it easy to trust. It actually seems a lot more unfathomable to me that an expert & thought-leader in startups would (1) be wrong & (2) risk his personal reputation just to make a bit more money. Finally, given the timing, it's pretty obvious Jeremy is shaking down his (ex?) friend for some money. If you believe equity should be granted out of thin air for working on something then well, you live in a different world than I do my friend. I trust the legal system (via contracts) to lock something like this down otherwise it's literally heresay.
- morgante 11y ago
  > I like to think Sam is a relatively sane guy with good intentions. So do I. I think he genuinely believes everything in this article and it's not out of self-interest. I just disagree. > If you believe equity should be granted out of thin air for working on something then well, you live in a different world than I do my friend. First of all, all equity is granted "out of thin air." It's an abstract concept. Without an agreed upon definition of the conditions whereby equity can be lost, it inherently flows to whoever worked on the project. If someone worked on a startup for 11 months and then quit, should he still get equity? What about if he wasn't getting paid? What if he was fired? What if it was actually for 4 years? There isn't any intrinsic answer to these questions and that's why we have legal agreements which spell out the answers. Just because an agreement wasn't signed does not mean Jeremy isn't entitled to compensation. A company can't refuse to pay you if they forgot to give you an official offer letter. I absolutely agree that contracts should be used to lock these things down. But there weren't contracts in place. Sam makes a lame appeal to a universal "implied" contract of there being 1-year cliffs, but the fact is that many people wouldn't sign such a contract. (I, for one, don't think it's ethical to leave founders who forego salaries with literally no compensation, even if they leave in the first year.)
  - joslin01 11y ago
    I appreciate your reply and especially in the new light of the counter-complaint. I'm not so sure anymore where I stand.
cookiecaper 11y ago
Yeah, somewhat surprisingly, I find myself sympathizing with Jeremy in this situation (which is not necessarily to say he is in the right; we have very few actual details about the case, so all opinion is fueled purely on personal bias and not on the actual facts, which could substantially change the commentary). Everyone else in SV, especially guys like sama, is making money hand over fist for doing practically nothing. Sometimes it feels very bad when you're not part of the group collecting free money. I know I feel left out sometimes and wonder I'm not out there nourishing my own magical unicorn that hemorrhages investor money as fast as it gets it while simultaneously being lauded as a visionary. I haven't pursued that because I don't feel it's moral to run a company the way SV people run companies, but my moral reservations have been proven naive before. It's completely plausible that Jeremy left for a legitimate reason and it's completely plausible that although he was only there a short time, he contributed substantially to the roadmap that took Cruise to acquisition. He should receive some compensation for that, if that is indeed the case. Even if he only did it for a month, it's a lot more than the VCs do. Why is Sam Altman entitled to money from this company but a cofounder who worked for one month isn't? I understand the legal argument that ensures sama will make money on this no matter how much or little one believes he may deserve it, but what about the moral argument that the people who contributed to and built the actual product should be entitled to the majority of its profits? I guess it just feels bad that Sam Altman feels the need to come out and "defend" a Cruise cofounder's right to deprive another cofounder of some at least semi-legitimately earned equity. Jeremy definitely came closer to the startup lottery in this one than most of us will, and Altman, who controls the startup lottery, doesn't want to let him get anything (because he and his compatriots want it for themselves instead).
- ericd 11y ago
  It's a lot more than the VCs do? By giving you the millions to hire a staff, get an office, etc for years? Working on something for a month absolutely doesn't entitle you to a share of the proceeds two or three years down the road, if there was no written or verbal agreement. You can make a claim, sure, but it should be thrown out quickly, and you absolutely should not wait until a blackmail-friendly situation to make it. Even if he had options, he would have had to exercise them years ago at most companies.
flyosity 11y ago
Can I ask why Jeremy would be entitled to anything since nothing was ever signed? If Kyle had a verbal agreement with Jeremy to pay him X or give him Y equity in exchange for the work he did, I don't see that in Sam's post or in the complaint that was filed. Without a signed agreement nor a verbal agreement, why would the courts give Jeremy anything?
- morgante 11y ago
  You and I work on a company together for 10 years. We never sign a legal document determining the equity structure. You then incorporate and sell the company. Do you think I shouldn't be entitled to a portion of those proceeds? Stock agreements amongst founders largely exist to limit your claim to equity. Without them, everyone working on a project is essentially an equal partner.
  - mr_luc 11y ago
    That's an interesting point, thank you. I find myself agreeing with sama on this (if the facts are at all how he presented them, that is). But ... I agree for moral reasons, not legal reasons. And despite the relative moral high ground that the startup world seems to occupy in business, morality != legality. Morally, if things are as they seem from here, and someone completely left and checked out, having contributed essentially some whiteboarding and finding an office, then I'd feel that morally speaking they're owed some compensation but not necessarily equity. However, legally, the principle you mention seems sound. And morals vary from person to person, which is one of the basic reasons societies need legal systems. It seems kinda shocking that they never signed anything explicit about Jeremy's equity. But if they didn't, then yeah, maybe he has a case.
    - trhway 11y ago
      >having contributed essentially some whiteboarding and finding an office reminded about that story of a guy painting a wall at a startup here around 10 years ago. Though the equity in that case was done in writing. In the case of Cruise, without even going into detailed merits of the case - there are lawyers and judges for that after all - i think Cruise has simple question - go for less than 100% of $1B or go for the whole 100% of nothing. Do they honestly think that their half-baked system - at best practically equivalent to the system of an average Grand Challenge team 10 years ago - is really worth $1B? They got lucky that GM is that stupid, desperate and rich. Greed can scare easily that luck away.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
xigency 11y ago
> He worked for the company for 1 month, without compensation. > That would automatically entitle him to equity in the company. This seems like a non-sequitur.
davros 11y ago
So depressing this is the top comment. If as you say Jeremy didn't sign an agreement with vesting in it, did he get a share certificate or a written contract to issue shares? I doubt it. So the legal situation is entirely in cruise's favour. Ethically cruise should and did make Jeremy some fair offer. But he is making an opportunistic raid, rolling the dice on a huge potential profit using the GM deal as leverage. Do people here really think that Jeremy is simply claiming a fair outcome for his one month of involvement?

codingdave 11y ago

I am assuming Jeremy is in the wrong because Kyle did offer him compensation. More than was fair, if we take Sam at his word. But Jeremy rejected that offer. I don't think people coming out of the woodwork to stake a claim is inherently wrong, IF they contributed to the effort, and IF they accept compensation that is offered. But if they did not truly contribute, or reject an offer, that crosses the line into just being greedy.

ska 11y ago
I am assuming Jeremy is in the wrong because Kyle did offer him compensation. "More than fair" could be doing a lot of work here, if the parties disagree on what it is for - if one side is thinking it's pretty good compensation for a couple of months work the other could be thinking it's a pretty lousy trade for x% of $bignum . Which says nothing about what is actually reasonable, in a given scenario.
Swannie 11y ago
Or the other way: I'm assuming that Kyle is in the wrong, because he made an offer, which could be construed as an admission that Jeremy is owed something.
rpgmaker 11y ago
Jeremy is left in what at first glance seems to be a scummy position but we live in the real world here and from the looks of it he does have a valid claim here. Sam says "Kyle made an extremely generous offer to settle this claim by offering to give Jeremy a lot of his own money." but Jeremy could be entitled to at least 10% of the company. Was Kyle offering him 100mil to settle the case? Doubtful. It sucks but this is what happens when you aren't careful. With that huge payday on the line any of us would've done what Jeremy is doing right now.

joslin01 11y ago

I like to think Sam is a relatively sane guy with good intentions. He seems to have wrote this to send a message, which means he believes in the principal of what he's doing, which is what makes it easy to trust. It actually seems a lot more unfathomable to me that an expert & thought-leader in startups would (1) be wrong & (2) risk his personal reputation just to make a bit more money. Finally, given the timing, it's pretty obvious Jeremy is shaking down his (ex?) friend for some money. If you believe equity should be granted out of thin air for working on something then well, you live in a different world than I do my friend. I trust the legal system (via contracts) to lock something like this down otherwise it's literally heresay.

morgante 11y ago
> I like to think Sam is a relatively sane guy with good intentions. So do I. I think he genuinely believes everything in this article and it's not out of self-interest. I just disagree. > If you believe equity should be granted out of thin air for working on something then well, you live in a different world than I do my friend. First of all, all equity is granted "out of thin air." It's an abstract concept. Without an agreed upon definition of the conditions whereby equity can be lost, it inherently flows to whoever worked on the project. If someone worked on a startup for 11 months and then quit, should he still get equity? What about if he wasn't getting paid? What if he was fired? What if it was actually for 4 years? There isn't any intrinsic answer to these questions and that's why we have legal agreements which spell out the answers. Just because an agreement wasn't signed does not mean Jeremy isn't entitled to compensation. A company can't refuse to pay you if they forgot to give you an official offer letter. I absolutely agree that contracts should be used to lock these things down. But there weren't contracts in place. Sam makes a lame appeal to a universal "implied" contract of there being 1-year cliffs, but the fact is that many people wouldn't sign such a contract. (I, for one, don't think it's ethical to leave founders who forego salaries with literally no compensation, even if they leave in the first year.)
- joslin01 11y ago
  I appreciate your reply and especially in the new light of the counter-complaint. I'm not so sure anymore where I stand.

cookiecaper 11y ago

Yeah, somewhat surprisingly, I find myself sympathizing with Jeremy in this situation (which is not necessarily to say he is in the right; we have very few actual details about the case, so all opinion is fueled purely on personal bias and not on the actual facts, which could substantially change the commentary). Everyone else in SV, especially guys like sama, is making money hand over fist for doing practically nothing. Sometimes it feels very bad when you're not part of the group collecting free money. I know I feel left out sometimes and wonder I'm not out there nourishing my own magical unicorn that hemorrhages investor money as fast as it gets it while simultaneously being lauded as a visionary. I haven't pursued that because I don't feel it's moral to run a company the way SV people run companies, but my moral reservations have been proven naive before. It's completely plausible that Jeremy left for a legitimate reason and it's completely plausible that although he was only there a short time, he contributed substantially to the roadmap that took Cruise to acquisition. He should receive some compensation for that, if that is indeed the case. Even if he only did it for a month, it's a lot more than the VCs do. Why is Sam Altman entitled to money from this company but a cofounder who worked for one month isn't? I understand the legal argument that ensures sama will make money on this no matter how much or little one believes he may deserve it, but what about the moral argument that the people who contributed to and built the actual product should be entitled to the majority of its profits? I guess it just feels bad that Sam Altman feels the need to come out and "defend" a Cruise cofounder's right to deprive another cofounder of some at least semi-legitimately earned equity. Jeremy definitely came closer to the startup lottery in this one than most of us will, and Altman, who controls the startup lottery, doesn't want to let him get anything (because he and his compatriots want it for themselves instead).

ericd 11y ago
It's a lot more than the VCs do? By giving you the millions to hire a staff, get an office, etc for years? Working on something for a month absolutely doesn't entitle you to a share of the proceeds two or three years down the road, if there was no written or verbal agreement. You can make a claim, sure, but it should be thrown out quickly, and you absolutely should not wait until a blackmail-friendly situation to make it. Even if he had options, he would have had to exercise them years ago at most companies.

flyosity 11y ago

Can I ask why Jeremy would be entitled to anything since nothing was ever signed? If Kyle had a verbal agreement with Jeremy to pay him X or give him Y equity in exchange for the work he did, I don't see that in Sam's post or in the complaint that was filed. Without a signed agreement nor a verbal agreement, why would the courts give Jeremy anything?

morgante 11y ago
You and I work on a company together for 10 years. We never sign a legal document determining the equity structure. You then incorporate and sell the company. Do you think I shouldn't be entitled to a portion of those proceeds? Stock agreements amongst founders largely exist to limit your claim to equity. Without them, everyone working on a project is essentially an equal partner.
- mr_luc 11y ago
  That's an interesting point, thank you. I find myself agreeing with sama on this (if the facts are at all how he presented them, that is). But ... I agree for moral reasons, not legal reasons. And despite the relative moral high ground that the startup world seems to occupy in business, morality != legality. Morally, if things are as they seem from here, and someone completely left and checked out, having contributed essentially some whiteboarding and finding an office, then I'd feel that morally speaking they're owed some compensation but not necessarily equity. However, legally, the principle you mention seems sound. And morals vary from person to person, which is one of the basic reasons societies need legal systems. It seems kinda shocking that they never signed anything explicit about Jeremy's equity. But if they didn't, then yeah, maybe he has a case.
  - trhway 11y ago
    >having contributed essentially some whiteboarding and finding an office reminded about that story of a guy painting a wall at a startup here around 10 years ago. Though the equity in that case was done in writing. In the case of Cruise, without even going into detailed merits of the case - there are lawyers and judges for that after all - i think Cruise has simple question - go for less than 100% of $1B or go for the whole 100% of nothing. Do they honestly think that their half-baked system - at best practically equivalent to the system of an average Grand Challenge team 10 years ago - is really worth $1B? They got lucky that GM is that stupid, desperate and rich. Greed can scare easily that luck away.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

xigency 11y ago

> He worked for the company for 1 month, without compensation. > That would automatically entitle him to equity in the company. This seems like a non-sequitur.

davros 11y ago

So depressing this is the top comment. If as you say Jeremy didn't sign an agreement with vesting in it, did he get a share certificate or a written contract to issue shares? I doubt it. So the legal situation is entirely in cruise's favour. Ethically cruise should and did make Jeremy some fair offer. But he is making an opportunistic raid, rolling the dice on a huge potential profit using the GM deal as leverage. Do people here really think that Jeremy is simply claiming a fair outcome for his one month of involvement?