9 ms·

Anyone who just cares about the numbers: he was given options of 45,000 shares, of which 15,000 had vested. These 15,000, or 0.0833% of the company, were availa

Anyone who just cares about the numbers: he was given options of 45,000 shares, of which 15,000 had vested. These 15,000, or 0.0833% of the company, were available to him at $0.27/share, or $4,050 total. So he had the opportunity to buy 0.0833% of the company at a $4.8MM valuation. Given that they recently raised $20MM at an undefined valuation it really says something that he chose not to exercise the options. I really recommend you all read the post. Also, damn, that email from the CEO about his private Twitter. That's completely out of line. For those of you that didn't read the article, the CEO called him out about a specific tweet (on a personal account with only 146 followers) where he linked to GitLab's page on Github for crying out loud. (also, curious note: this comment went from 4 points to zero in less than five minutes. Hmmmm.)

zeveb 10y ago
> Damn, that email from the CEO about his private Twitter. That's completely out of line. It regarded his professional work on GitLab: https://twitter.com/suprnova32/status/720396175954698240 https://twitter.com/suprnova32/status/720396175954698240 I think it's completely appropriate that he link instead to GitLab for such a thing, and I think it's remarkable that he didn't think the same. This isn't like the ad world, where if your customer is Coke you can't be seen drinking a Pepsi in public (which I agree is crazy): he was posting about GitLab itself, linking to their GitHub mirror instead of to their own site, which completely undermines the GitLab position.
- owenversteeg 10y ago
  There doesn't appear to be a GitLab equivalent. And that still doesn't change that it was his personal Twitter with 146 followers. The Tweet got one single like. "Undermining the GitLab position" with a Tweet that has one like seems ridiculous.
  - smm2000 10y ago
    "Even GitLab employees use GitHub to track project progress and contributions - look at this senior GitLab employee twitter post. GitHub is clearly superior product" - magazine article or competitor to potential client. CEO ask to link to GitLab was completely legitimate. CEO could have phrased it more politely but even as it is it's ok and nothing to complain about.
- hdhzy 10y ago
  If a tweet like that can undermine their position then the tweet itself is the least of their problems.
- haswell 10y ago
  Not commenting on whether or not this was "right/wrong", but it's worth noting that the GitHub contributor page is showing something different than the GitLab contributor page (adds vs. commits). If adds is what he wanted to show, GitHub may have been the only place to show that. It's also worth noting that if you search Google for GitLab source code, GitHub is the first thing that comes up. To an uninformed outsider, it looks like GitHub is where GitLab development happens. It may not have been the best thing to do, but I don't think this tweet "completely undermines the GitLab position".
- Everhusk 10y ago
  Why is GitLab even using Github? https://github.com/gitlabhq https://github.com/gitlabhq
  - aquabib 10y ago
    Backup.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      That's fine, but why would GitLab execs not insist on keeping it private?
    - hackerboos 10y ago
      Doesn't inspire confidence in the platform...
      - jameskegel 10y ago
        I started to refute this, but as I reviewed my post, I came to the realization that I have less confidence in the platform today than I did 12 months ago. Don't get me wrong, I like the Gitlab team, if you could call it that, for their transparency under duress, and how they kept us abreast of the troubles. However, the 'people' is not to be confused with the 'product', and if you're one of the users affected by recent events, then you may be justified in not giving a positive review of their service.
  - pronik 10y ago
    Automated builds with Docker Hub as one of the reasons, IIRC.
  - martijndeh 10y ago
    Nowadays the stuff on GitHub is simply a mirror. Originally, they used GitHub primarily. Why they used GitHub was explained by Sytse (or Sid) in 2013: "We're just going to stay where the people are. [...] GitHub is where the contributors are." You can hear him yourself in The Changelog #103 podcast at https://changelog.com/podcast/103 https://changelog.com/podcast/103. Again, this was from late 2013.
- princekolt 10y ago
  GitLab shouldn't be using GitHub then.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  I agree with you. This is not about how many followers see this or if it undermines the company's position. It's about culture. If the CEO of the company lets things like this go, it will keep happening. And it will only get worse. From my experience, I would rather not have this kind of employee around than trying to play nice with him personally because this kind of attitude spills over and eventually affects the entire team morale.
  - newsat13 10y ago
    Wow, you guys are totally off base. Do you realize it's his private twitter account and not company's? How does it matter if it's about his job? If I work for Google and I made a comment on how Bing was funny or DDG respects privacy, I don't expect Sundar to send me a mail. What if your CEO followed all your social media and day to day life and commented on things? But yeah, from my experience, I would rather not have commenters like you around as this attitude of overseeing my shoulders in my personal twitter account spills over everywhere and affects the entire team morale.
    - cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
      You're comparing one of the largest companies in the world with a startup with just over hundred employees. Of course the CEO of Google has more important things to do. Also I'm not saying the CEO was absolutely right. I wouldn't follow my employee on Twitter at all personally for the same reason. And I would definitely not enjoy if my CEO told me to change my tweet either. But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about this guy. Aside from what the CEO did, this guy is a toxic guy, even after reading his own post that's obviously biased towards himself. He was not mistreated. I would understand if he's writing about how the company fucked him over by not letting him take his stock options. But no, this guy came to medium and wrote about how he's NOT going to take the stock options that were offered to him. If you really think this guy is the purely innocent guy and the company fucked him over, then I really have nothing more to talk about.
nandemo 10y ago
> These 15,000, or 0.0833% of the company, were available to him at $0.27/share, or $4,050 total. So he had the opportunity to buy 0.0833% of the company at a $4.8MM valuation. Given that they recently raised $20MM at an undefined valuation it really says something that he chose not to exercise the options. I normally don't comment on HN without having read TFA, but this one is way too long and I just skimmed over it. I think OP not exercising their options is more about getting feelings in the way of a financial decision. A 4.8MM valuation is really cheap. And it's not like exercising would incur a huge amount of taxes.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  A $20MM raise suggests a $100M valuation or so. That's a 20x increase in the stock price. OP's outlay would be something like $4000 + $35000 (state tax + short term capital gains. Less depending on how he hits AMT.). I don't think that's trivial, even if I'm off by a factor of 2.
  - owenversteeg 10y ago
    Don't some banks let you take out a loan for the amount of the capital gains taxes using the shares as collateral? I'm not sure but I could've sworn I heard about this.
    - jkmcf 10y ago
      For public companies, I know it's true. I'm not sure about private companies.
      - sjg007 10y ago
        It's basically impossible with a private company.
    - majormajor 10y ago
      If you never get a chance to sell that stock at a high enough price to cover that 35K loan, are you still personally liable for it?
urda 10y ago
> Also, damn, that email from the CEO about his private Twitter. That's completely out of line. It was a tweet regarding his company's platform, but using a competitor's. The e-mail really was not that bad, and that is what he should have linked. It would have been one thing if the e-mail was a massive rant-fest, and did nothing but berate him. I saw it more of "hey, do this instead next time" kind of thing. > (also, curious note: this comment went from 4 points to zero in less than five minutes. Hmmmm.) Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
MegaButts 10y ago
> (also, curious note: this comment went from 4 points to zero in less than five minutes. Hmmmm.) When I have a comment on top of a thread that isn't exceedingly positive, I've seen much wilder swings than that. I wouldn't read too much into it.
dano 10y ago
Just did a bit more math here. Given the numbers above, if the company is valued at $100m and not adding shares, the valuation could be ~$5.60 per share. When buying ISO's you need to pay for the shares and pay the taxes on the difference between the strike price ($0.27) and the fair market value on the date of purchase. Therefore, in this example, tax would be owed on ($5.60 - $0.27) * 15000 or $79k in paper gain. Depending on other income and a variety of factors, tax due may be greater than $28k. Total cash out of pocket to exercise these options would then be the amount paid for the options plus the tax. $4050 + $28k for a total of $32k on a valuation of 15000 * $5.65 or $84750. If Gitlab does not decrease in value, he could benefit about $50k on an investment of $32k. If Gitlab increases in value, the benefit could be larger. Not a tax guy here so corrections are gladly accepted and appreciated to increase the clarity of the situation.
- nojvek 10y ago
  After reading the article, I think author is not very confident that Gitlab will go for a big IPO. $4k is not a lot of money, but the taxes can really get you. And it gets even worse if GitLab dies before going to IPO or their IPO is nowhere near the current valuation. He can lose a lot of money in the process. I also feel OP not investing in a company that he feels doesn't have the best interest of employees in mind is a good stance. Gitlab's reputation is tainted in my mind.
supernovae 10y ago
you don't actually need 5 grand to buy the options, you just sell 5 grand worth and keep the difference. Sounds like he may have walked away from a lot of money.. he would have had a 34,000 dollar check.. paid out ~25% in taxes and been ahead.. oh well

zeveb 10y ago

> Damn, that email from the CEO about his private Twitter. That's completely out of line. It regarded his professional work on GitLab: https://twitter.com/suprnova32/status/720396175954698240 https://twitter.com/suprnova32/status/720396175954698240 I think it's completely appropriate that he link instead to GitLab for such a thing, and I think it's remarkable that he didn't think the same. This isn't like the ad world, where if your customer is Coke you can't be seen drinking a Pepsi in public (which I agree is crazy): he was posting about GitLab itself, linking to their GitHub mirror instead of to their own site, which completely undermines the GitLab position.

owenversteeg 10y ago
There doesn't appear to be a GitLab equivalent. And that still doesn't change that it was his personal Twitter with 146 followers. The Tweet got one single like. "Undermining the GitLab position" with a Tweet that has one like seems ridiculous.
- smm2000 10y ago
  "Even GitLab employees use GitHub to track project progress and contributions - look at this senior GitLab employee twitter post. GitHub is clearly superior product" - magazine article or competitor to potential client. CEO ask to link to GitLab was completely legitimate. CEO could have phrased it more politely but even as it is it's ok and nothing to complain about.
hdhzy 10y ago
If a tweet like that can undermine their position then the tweet itself is the least of their problems.
haswell 10y ago
Not commenting on whether or not this was "right/wrong", but it's worth noting that the GitHub contributor page is showing something different than the GitLab contributor page (adds vs. commits). If adds is what he wanted to show, GitHub may have been the only place to show that. It's also worth noting that if you search Google for GitLab source code, GitHub is the first thing that comes up. To an uninformed outsider, it looks like GitHub is where GitLab development happens. It may not have been the best thing to do, but I don't think this tweet "completely undermines the GitLab position".
Everhusk 10y ago
Why is GitLab even using Github? https://github.com/gitlabhq https://github.com/gitlabhq
- aquabib 10y ago
  Backup.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    That's fine, but why would GitLab execs not insist on keeping it private?
  - hackerboos 10y ago
    Doesn't inspire confidence in the platform...
    - jameskegel 10y ago
      I started to refute this, but as I reviewed my post, I came to the realization that I have less confidence in the platform today than I did 12 months ago. Don't get me wrong, I like the Gitlab team, if you could call it that, for their transparency under duress, and how they kept us abreast of the troubles. However, the 'people' is not to be confused with the 'product', and if you're one of the users affected by recent events, then you may be justified in not giving a positive review of their service.
- pronik 10y ago
  Automated builds with Docker Hub as one of the reasons, IIRC.
- martijndeh 10y ago
  Nowadays the stuff on GitHub is simply a mirror. Originally, they used GitHub primarily. Why they used GitHub was explained by Sytse (or Sid) in 2013: "We're just going to stay where the people are. [...] GitHub is where the contributors are." You can hear him yourself in The Changelog #103 podcast at https://changelog.com/podcast/103 https://changelog.com/podcast/103. Again, this was from late 2013.
princekolt 10y ago
GitLab shouldn't be using GitHub then.
cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
I agree with you. This is not about how many followers see this or if it undermines the company's position. It's about culture. If the CEO of the company lets things like this go, it will keep happening. And it will only get worse. From my experience, I would rather not have this kind of employee around than trying to play nice with him personally because this kind of attitude spills over and eventually affects the entire team morale.
- newsat13 10y ago
  Wow, you guys are totally off base. Do you realize it's his private twitter account and not company's? How does it matter if it's about his job? If I work for Google and I made a comment on how Bing was funny or DDG respects privacy, I don't expect Sundar to send me a mail. What if your CEO followed all your social media and day to day life and commented on things? But yeah, from my experience, I would rather not have commenters like you around as this attitude of overseeing my shoulders in my personal twitter account spills over everywhere and affects the entire team morale.
  - cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
    You're comparing one of the largest companies in the world with a startup with just over hundred employees. Of course the CEO of Google has more important things to do. Also I'm not saying the CEO was absolutely right. I wouldn't follow my employee on Twitter at all personally for the same reason. And I would definitely not enjoy if my CEO told me to change my tweet either. But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about this guy. Aside from what the CEO did, this guy is a toxic guy, even after reading his own post that's obviously biased towards himself. He was not mistreated. I would understand if he's writing about how the company fucked him over by not letting him take his stock options. But no, this guy came to medium and wrote about how he's NOT going to take the stock options that were offered to him. If you really think this guy is the purely innocent guy and the company fucked him over, then I really have nothing more to talk about.

nandemo 10y ago

> These 15,000, or 0.0833% of the company, were available to him at $0.27/share, or $4,050 total. So he had the opportunity to buy 0.0833% of the company at a $4.8MM valuation. Given that they recently raised $20MM at an undefined valuation it really says something that he chose not to exercise the options. I normally don't comment on HN without having read TFA, but this one is way too long and I just skimmed over it. I think OP not exercising their options is more about getting feelings in the way of a financial decision. A 4.8MM valuation is really cheap. And it's not like exercising would incur a huge amount of taxes.

hkmurakami 10y ago
A $20MM raise suggests a $100M valuation or so. That's a 20x increase in the stock price. OP's outlay would be something like $4000 + $35000 (state tax + short term capital gains. Less depending on how he hits AMT.). I don't think that's trivial, even if I'm off by a factor of 2.
- owenversteeg 10y ago
  Don't some banks let you take out a loan for the amount of the capital gains taxes using the shares as collateral? I'm not sure but I could've sworn I heard about this.
  - jkmcf 10y ago
    For public companies, I know it's true. I'm not sure about private companies.
    - sjg007 10y ago
      It's basically impossible with a private company.
  - majormajor 10y ago
    If you never get a chance to sell that stock at a high enough price to cover that 35K loan, are you still personally liable for it?

urda 10y ago

> Also, damn, that email from the CEO about his private Twitter. That's completely out of line. It was a tweet regarding his company's platform, but using a competitor's. The e-mail really was not that bad, and that is what he should have linked. It would have been one thing if the e-mail was a massive rant-fest, and did nothing but berate him. I saw it more of "hey, do this instead next time" kind of thing. > (also, curious note: this comment went from 4 points to zero in less than five minutes. Hmmmm.) Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

MegaButts 10y ago

> (also, curious note: this comment went from 4 points to zero in less than five minutes. Hmmmm.) When I have a comment on top of a thread that isn't exceedingly positive, I've seen much wilder swings than that. I wouldn't read too much into it.

dano 10y ago

Just did a bit more math here. Given the numbers above, if the company is valued at $100m and not adding shares, the valuation could be ~$5.60 per share. When buying ISO's you need to pay for the shares and pay the taxes on the difference between the strike price ($0.27) and the fair market value on the date of purchase. Therefore, in this example, tax would be owed on ($5.60 - $0.27) * 15000 or $79k in paper gain. Depending on other income and a variety of factors, tax due may be greater than $28k. Total cash out of pocket to exercise these options would then be the amount paid for the options plus the tax. $4050 + $28k for a total of $32k on a valuation of 15000 * $5.65 or $84750. If Gitlab does not decrease in value, he could benefit about $50k on an investment of $32k. If Gitlab increases in value, the benefit could be larger. Not a tax guy here so corrections are gladly accepted and appreciated to increase the clarity of the situation.

nojvek 10y ago
After reading the article, I think author is not very confident that Gitlab will go for a big IPO. $4k is not a lot of money, but the taxes can really get you. And it gets even worse if GitLab dies before going to IPO or their IPO is nowhere near the current valuation. He can lose a lot of money in the process. I also feel OP not investing in a company that he feels doesn't have the best interest of employees in mind is a good stance. Gitlab's reputation is tainted in my mind.

supernovae 10y ago

you don't actually need 5 grand to buy the options, you just sell 5 grand worth and keep the difference. Sounds like he may have walked away from a lot of money.. he would have had a 34,000 dollar check.. paid out ~25% in taxes and been ahead.. oh well