3 ms·
If you have no intension of every going public or selling the company do you still fall inside the current definition of a startup? It seems unfair, if the fou
by new299 10y ago
If you have no intension of every going public or selling the company do you still fall inside the current definition of a startup?
It seems unfair, if the founders are able to sell their equity privately.
Overall, in a startup my view is that equity offsets the risk that the company might just disappear. You're taking on that risk, you should get to keep that equity compensation (even if you leave).
From the employers point of view, equity should help motivate staff so they don't just consider their own job security, but overall company success.
If you're never going to IPO, perhaps do that via dividends? Or other profit sharing mechanism.
- kareemm 10y agoWould you really call Basecamp a startup? They've been around since 2003. They're more precisely a mature/ing software company.
- Tharkun 10y agoWhy is this unfair? Since when do employees feel entitled to own a part of the company -- but only if it goes well, right? Wouldn't it be more fair if they had to pay up if the company went under? Misplaced sense of entitlement, this. You work for a company, they pay you. What the owners/founders do with it is up to them. And if you think this is unfair, then you should probably start your own -- with all the risks, hardships and possible benefits that come with it.
- new299 10y agoCompany 1: Established large software company with healthy market Company 2: Startup with 1.5 years runway. If the pay is the same, equity compensates for lack of job security in company 2.