3 ms·
Was the author naive? Yes, we all go through there but the rule always applies, always have a contract. That said, I don't really understand people here that c
by nicolas_t 10y ago
Was the author naive? Yes, we all go through there but the rule always applies, always have a contract.
That said, I don't really understand people here that criticize him. Per the screenshot they called him a shareholder. That word has a clear meaning and they clearly screwed him over. I think he was right to walk away with his tech.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoThe next sentence after "You want to be a shareholder?" is "What percentage are we talking about here?" followed by "When will the paperwork arrive? That's when I can start contributing." That conversation failed to happen (for weeks). There's some responsibility for the meltdown shared by both parties here.
- nicolas_t 10y agoOh, I completely agree. He was naive and he has some responsibility for the issue but they were clearly dishonest while he was only naive. Even if there's responsibility to be shared and good lessons to be learned by new developers reading this, it doesn't stop the fact that he was not the dishonest party in this.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoThat's a supposition made on very small evidence. They offered him employment with shares - one interpretation of the ambiguous offer. To suppose they meant anything more is pure conjecture.
- nicolas_t 10y agoWe do have the screenshot he provided of the facebook conversation which is pretty damning and very clear. Employment with equity != shareholder in any well used definition of the word shareholder. So, as long as we assume that the OP didn't falsify the Facebook screenshot, it's not small evidence.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoStill nothing concrete - to be called a 'shareholder' is not terribly meaningful, is it? Terms like "honorary co-founder" are meaningless. I don't hold them harmless - it was not right to let the ambiguity go on so long. But s/he was complicit in that.