5 ms·

Nope, they took on less risk than anyone else involved. Money is fungible, and they've likely got a lot of it. The people there, day after day, they gave thei

by Frondo 10y ago

Nope, they took on less risk than anyone else involved. Money is fungible, and they've likely got a lot of it. The people there, day after day, they gave their time. That's something we all only have a limited amount of, and that's something you'll never get back.

EpicEng 10y ago
That's insane. You seriously believe that you took on more risk by accepting a cushy, salaried position, than someone who invested millions of dollars? Their net worth is none of your business. They are quite literally funding every paycheck you get. No one is 'giving' their time; they're being paid for it. You're not doing anyone any favors. You're performing a task and getting compensated quite well to do so. Such an entitled perspective.
- sbov 10y ago
  Most startups offer lower salaries and compensate in other ways. This is a risk. If you work at such a startup employees and founders likely take on more risk than your average VC because the VC can hedge their bets. Employees and founders have no way to do this. Edit: I wouldn't necessarily say each individual employee takes on more risk than the VC. But I would definitely say that, on the whole, they do. A startup that "almost makes it" can be a life & opportunity cost sucking endeavor for employees, VCs don't have to worry about that as much because they have their fingers in a lot of pies.
  - jartelt 10y ago
    Most well-funded large startups offer salaries close to market rate. Sure there is the risk that the equity can end up worth $0, but the salaries can easily be >$100,000. Even if theranos employees took a pay cut to work there (compared working at an established company), I am sure they derived extra value from the perks of working there and from working on a mission they believed in (or at least they thought they believed in...).
- npizzolato 10y ago
  > Their net worth is none of your business. But net worth has everything to do with risk. A person worth $1 million putting up all $1 million is risking everything he has. A person worth $1 billion probably won't even notice if he loses $1 million. There's almost no risk to him if he loses that money.
  - pyre 10y ago
    It's a question of scope though. The parent to your post is trying to scope the risk to "the risk of losing $1 million", not "the risk of financial hardship." If you can both get on the same page with respect to this, then you won't be talking past each other.
    - madgar 10y ago
      The person you're replying to understands this. They demonstrated that they took the effort to understand the person they're replying to by including the smaller scope in their comments. GGP is either incapable of comprehending the broader scope for whatever reason, or is deliberately limiting the scope to "win."
- st3v3r 10y ago
  No, the entitled perspective here is that simply having money entitles you to the bulk of reward, and that a group of people who will not have negative consequences for a company going under is taking more risk than people who would be losing their income stream, and possibly their health coverage and home.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    And damage to their careers, and of course the simple time lost on fraudulent ventures. Imagine the young, newly-minted PhD looking to strike out in industry and kick-start their career with some real cool engineering. They saddle up with Theranos and sink several years of productive life into a technology that will never work--and that people at the top knew would never work. They'll move on, but at what cost? This is their life and career, not just a bit of cash. Compare that to a VC losing their investment? That is insulting and wrong on every mark.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >That's insane. You seriously believe that you took on more risk by accepting a cushy, salaried position, than someone who invested millions of dollars? Their net worth is none of your business. Monetary risk is all about the percentage of net worth at stake. If I put $100 dollars on a startup I'm not taking a huge risk. And for VCs, their investment is often what $100 dollars are to me.
proee 10y ago
They did not "give away" their time; they were compensated at a fair market value for their time. I believe this is what we call "employment."
- tluyben2 10y ago
  If it was a fair salary. A lot of places try to pay low and give shares for payout in the future. Many young and techie people go for that if they are enthusiastic about the idea.
- pdpi 10y ago
  At a fair market value -- except if it was an early stage startup it was discounted from market value, with subpar benefits, but with a "tonne" of (now worthless) equity. It is in many ways personally more rewarding, but taking a job in a startup versus a well-established business is taking a risk, accepting subpar conditions today for a shot at a big prize later on.
  - proee 10y ago
    The company has been around for 10 years, with hundreds of millions in funding through multiple rounds, so I would not consider this a "startup". The employees were/are highly paid and not assuming any real risk.
rootlocus 10y ago
While philosophically time is invaluable, I bet people would rather spend their time earning money if they don't have other options.

by Frondo 10y ago

EpicEng 10y ago

That's insane. You seriously believe that you took on more risk by accepting a cushy, salaried position, than someone who invested millions of dollars? Their net worth is none of your business. They are quite literally funding every paycheck you get. No one is 'giving' their time; they're being paid for it. You're not doing anyone any favors. You're performing a task and getting compensated quite well to do so. Such an entitled perspective.

sbov 10y ago
Most startups offer lower salaries and compensate in other ways. This is a risk. If you work at such a startup employees and founders likely take on more risk than your average VC because the VC can hedge their bets. Employees and founders have no way to do this. Edit: I wouldn't necessarily say each individual employee takes on more risk than the VC. But I would definitely say that, on the whole, they do. A startup that "almost makes it" can be a life & opportunity cost sucking endeavor for employees, VCs don't have to worry about that as much because they have their fingers in a lot of pies.
- jartelt 10y ago
  Most well-funded large startups offer salaries close to market rate. Sure there is the risk that the equity can end up worth $0, but the salaries can easily be >$100,000. Even if theranos employees took a pay cut to work there (compared working at an established company), I am sure they derived extra value from the perks of working there and from working on a mission they believed in (or at least they thought they believed in...).
npizzolato 10y ago
> Their net worth is none of your business. But net worth has everything to do with risk. A person worth $1 million putting up all $1 million is risking everything he has. A person worth $1 billion probably won't even notice if he loses $1 million. There's almost no risk to him if he loses that money.
- pyre 10y ago
  It's a question of scope though. The parent to your post is trying to scope the risk to "the risk of losing $1 million", not "the risk of financial hardship." If you can both get on the same page with respect to this, then you won't be talking past each other.
  - madgar 10y ago
    The person you're replying to understands this. They demonstrated that they took the effort to understand the person they're replying to by including the smaller scope in their comments. GGP is either incapable of comprehending the broader scope for whatever reason, or is deliberately limiting the scope to "win."
st3v3r 10y ago
No, the entitled perspective here is that simply having money entitles you to the bulk of reward, and that a group of people who will not have negative consequences for a company going under is taking more risk than people who would be losing their income stream, and possibly their health coverage and home.
- Frondo 10y ago
  And damage to their careers, and of course the simple time lost on fraudulent ventures. Imagine the young, newly-minted PhD looking to strike out in industry and kick-start their career with some real cool engineering. They saddle up with Theranos and sink several years of productive life into a technology that will never work--and that people at the top knew would never work. They'll move on, but at what cost? This is their life and career, not just a bit of cash. Compare that to a VC losing their investment? That is insulting and wrong on every mark.
coldtea 10y ago
>That's insane. You seriously believe that you took on more risk by accepting a cushy, salaried position, than someone who invested millions of dollars? Their net worth is none of your business. Monetary risk is all about the percentage of net worth at stake. If I put $100 dollars on a startup I'm not taking a huge risk. And for VCs, their investment is often what $100 dollars are to me.

proee 10y ago

They did not "give away" their time; they were compensated at a fair market value for their time. I believe this is what we call "employment."

tluyben2 10y ago
If it was a fair salary. A lot of places try to pay low and give shares for payout in the future. Many young and techie people go for that if they are enthusiastic about the idea.
pdpi 10y ago
At a fair market value -- except if it was an early stage startup it was discounted from market value, with subpar benefits, but with a "tonne" of (now worthless) equity. It is in many ways personally more rewarding, but taking a job in a startup versus a well-established business is taking a risk, accepting subpar conditions today for a shot at a big prize later on.
- proee 10y ago
  The company has been around for 10 years, with hundreds of millions in funding through multiple rounds, so I would not consider this a "startup". The employees were/are highly paid and not assuming any real risk.

rootlocus 10y ago

While philosophically time is invaluable, I bet people would rather spend their time earning money if they don't have other options.