3 ms·
This article states that former employees are "lining their pockets" at the expense of current employees who are "build[ing] future shareholder value" (i.e. cre
by mattsoldo 10y ago
This article states that former employees are "lining their pockets" at the expense of current employees who are "build[ing] future shareholder value" (i.e. creating value for VCs). But it ignores the fact that those former employees already built shareholder value when they were working. And by joining early on they took a much larger risk than employees who sign on during the growth stage - often receiving less salary and certainly holding more uncertainty over the future value of their equity.
A longer exercise window is a benefit that accrues to all employees, because it applies to all of them.
The author's proposed solution feels quite absurd to me - to prevent exercise of stock options by any employee who departs for a liquidity event. I wouldn't join a startup that had these provisions.
- taneq 10y agoThis is how I read it. He only feels that the employee is owed anything while they have something to offer the company. As soon as they're no longer working for the company, the amount they're owed becomes wasted 'dead money' that should be spent on keeping the remaining employees motivated, rather than given to someone who no longer matters.
- Spooky23 10y agoThe VC gets to "create more value" for himself by paying employees with monopoly scrip rather than cash.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoPerhaps what is needed are sunset clauses on investor/non-labor shares? The riders-on should be shed while those who did the actual work get to enjoy their profits, no?
- eru 10y agoWhat do you mean? If you tell people upfront that their shares will be worthless eventually, why would anyone invest time or money?