4 ms·

DHH and Jason Fried have several vacation homes and sports cars and actual hard cash. The founders of Slack have golden tickets with somebody else's name on mos

DHH and Jason Fried have several vacation homes and sports cars and actual hard cash. The founders of Slack have golden tickets with somebody else's name on most of them. I guess it all boils down to what's important to you.

lloydde 10y ago
Why did you choose to name the Basecamp founders, but not Slack founders? At least part of the Slack founders seem to be public figures who have had recognized financial success when Flickr was acquired many years ago. Also, it is probably that with Slack at its current levels of investment the founders have been able to take money off the table for themselves -- that is how these big rounds seem to be structured for unicorns to remove some "distraction" for the founders.
- rubiquity 10y ago
  I named the Basecamp founders because I was able to recall their names off the top of my head. I could have done some more research I suppose.
  - lloydde 10y ago
    Without doing that research how can you tally their cars and homes?
charlesdm 10y ago
I'd much rather (co-)own 37signals than an equity stake in any venture funded business, including Slack. Who seriously loves working crazy hours? Make $20m and invest that well, that's all you need to live a full, free and happy life with your family. Enjoy work, but don't live to work.
- pdog 10y ago
  Luckily, ambitious people don't think like this. They'd rather make a huge impact on society (think companies like Google and Tesla) than retire comfortably once they can afford fancy toys.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Google and Tesla are only possible because their founders actually got control over the money and were able to deploy it to their ends. Yes, their rise was VC-fueled, but that's not the only way to go about it. At some point, you have to be rational. Yes, in theory you could make enough money to reshape the world in your own image. In real life, people need balance and they need limits, and they need to learn to be content with what they can get within those limits, however much that is. Elon Musk is now a two-time divorcee. Brin is a divorcee. I don't actually know Page's marital status and don't care enough to look it up. Google and Tesla's impact is primarily technical, not social; the social impacts are not insignificant, but they're incidental to the technology, and though they like to think they are, Google et al are not in control of how that technology is used. In fact, the effects of these technical innovations appear contradictory to what are likely to be considered the tech industry's dominant values (see: election of Donald Trump). Google and Tesla are important companies, but perhaps their founders could indeed use a little more balance.
- manigandham 10y ago
  > Who seriously loves working crazy hours? I do. And so do plenty of others. Everyone has a different purpose in mind. Saying "that's all you need" about life choices is incredibly reductive and never helpful.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    Is it working crazy hours you enjoy, or achieving impressive results? Those are two different things, and the latter can almost always be achieved without the former.
    - manigandham 10y ago
      Both.
      - charlesdm 10y ago
        I don't get working crazy hours, but to each it's own! :) I prefer working smart rather than working long hours.
        manigandham 10y ago
        > smart rather than working long hours. I know you mean well but these are not exclusive, you can do both. There is no substitute for sheer effort, regardless of how optimized it is. But yes, to each their own.
austenallred 10y ago
I'd be willing to bet that if the founder of Slack wanted/needed to he could take quite a bit of money off the table. Come series B/C/D+ usually founders can take a bit off the table. Stewart can probably do whatever he wants (though he made enough form Flickr he doesn't need to). As for me, I have not very much in savings, but I would take 30% ownership of Slack over 30% ownership of 37Signals/Basecamp in a _second_, and not even just from a long-term perspective. I'd bet with a 30% stake in Slack you could put a couple million away to hedge downside risk, then have tons and tons of upside available. I think HN could do a much better job at understanding the practicalities of equity and what it really looks like if you're a founder. You're not just handed a bunch of paper and told to work and dream for 10 years, generally speaking.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  A 37signals type of business is completely different to a venture business. It depends on what you look for in life, and how you prefer living your life. I personally couldn't care less about potentially having billions in upside. $10-20mm is enough for me to do whatever I want in life.

lloydde 10y ago

Why did you choose to name the Basecamp founders, but not Slack founders? At least part of the Slack founders seem to be public figures who have had recognized financial success when Flickr was acquired many years ago. Also, it is probably that with Slack at its current levels of investment the founders have been able to take money off the table for themselves -- that is how these big rounds seem to be structured for unicorns to remove some "distraction" for the founders.

rubiquity 10y ago
I named the Basecamp founders because I was able to recall their names off the top of my head. I could have done some more research I suppose.
- lloydde 10y ago
  Without doing that research how can you tally their cars and homes?

charlesdm 10y ago

I'd much rather (co-)own 37signals than an equity stake in any venture funded business, including Slack. Who seriously loves working crazy hours? Make $20m and invest that well, that's all you need to live a full, free and happy life with your family. Enjoy work, but don't live to work.

pdog 10y ago
Luckily, ambitious people don't think like this. They'd rather make a huge impact on society (think companies like Google and Tesla) than retire comfortably once they can afford fancy toys.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Google and Tesla are only possible because their founders actually got control over the money and were able to deploy it to their ends. Yes, their rise was VC-fueled, but that's not the only way to go about it. At some point, you have to be rational. Yes, in theory you could make enough money to reshape the world in your own image. In real life, people need balance and they need limits, and they need to learn to be content with what they can get within those limits, however much that is. Elon Musk is now a two-time divorcee. Brin is a divorcee. I don't actually know Page's marital status and don't care enough to look it up. Google and Tesla's impact is primarily technical, not social; the social impacts are not insignificant, but they're incidental to the technology, and though they like to think they are, Google et al are not in control of how that technology is used. In fact, the effects of these technical innovations appear contradictory to what are likely to be considered the tech industry's dominant values (see: election of Donald Trump). Google and Tesla are important companies, but perhaps their founders could indeed use a little more balance.
manigandham 10y ago
> Who seriously loves working crazy hours? I do. And so do plenty of others. Everyone has a different purpose in mind. Saying "that's all you need" about life choices is incredibly reductive and never helpful.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  Is it working crazy hours you enjoy, or achieving impressive results? Those are two different things, and the latter can almost always be achieved without the former.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    Both.
    - charlesdm 10y ago
      I don't get working crazy hours, but to each it's own! :) I prefer working smart rather than working long hours.
      - manigandham 10y ago
        > smart rather than working long hours. I know you mean well but these are not exclusive, you can do both. There is no substitute for sheer effort, regardless of how optimized it is. But yes, to each their own.

austenallred 10y ago

I'd be willing to bet that if the founder of Slack wanted/needed to he could take quite a bit of money off the table. Come series B/C/D+ usually founders can take a bit off the table. Stewart can probably do whatever he wants (though he made enough form Flickr he doesn't need to). As for me, I have not very much in savings, but I would take 30% ownership of Slack over 30% ownership of 37Signals/Basecamp in a _second_, and not even just from a long-term perspective. I'd bet with a 30% stake in Slack you could put a couple million away to hedge downside risk, then have tons and tons of upside available. I think HN could do a much better job at understanding the practicalities of equity and what it really looks like if you're a founder. You're not just handed a bunch of paper and told to work and dream for 10 years, generally speaking.

charlesdm 10y ago
A 37signals type of business is completely different to a venture business. It depends on what you look for in life, and how you prefer living your life. I personally couldn't care less about potentially having billions in upside. $10-20mm is enough for me to do whatever I want in life.