4 ms·

I find the term "cofounder" to be way overused, especially on HN lately. Once a company has been founded, and an initial product launched, how is it possible to

by k33n 16y ago

I find the term "cofounder" to be way overused, especially on HN lately. Once a company has been founded, and an initial product launched, how is it possible to "hire" a cofounder? Also: > The site needs someone young and hungry to work their ass off for equity. If you can't afford to pay a programmer, you should probably just work your own ass off.

kristiandupont 16y ago
>If you can't afford to pay a programmer, you should probably just work your own ass off. Are you suggesting that it is unethical for people to work for equity?
- k33n 16y ago
  Depends on the type of equity being offered, and who it's being offered to. The equity being offered here is probably worth nothing, or worse, is a liability. Especially since it's being offered to a "young and hungry" AKA "green" programmer who doesn't know that yet.
mhm6b 16y ago
I'm looking for someone that is going to drive the site forward without having to watch over them. I'm looking for someone to take ownership of their work. Thus, equity.
- enjo 16y ago
  One simple request: Can you please make sure you provide adequate counseling about the tax implications of 'working for equity' that given an already-launched product can be quite onerous?
  - damoncali 16y ago
    This is HUGE. The new hire can wind up with a substantial tax bill, and no cash to pay it with. Don't gloss over this!
    - grasshoper 16y ago
      Surely the government would accept equity in an ambitious young startup poised to reshape the world of online music.
      - damoncali 16y ago
        Why not. They seem to accept equity in over-priced homes.
  - alnayyir 16y ago
    You assume the OP knows them himself. You're a far more optimistic person than I am.
- marknutter 16y ago
  Equity isn't worth shit til' the person receiving equity to build the product builds the product (thus making the equity worth something). All developers should avoid these catch 22 situations; I know I do.
coryl 16y ago
It is a cofounder though, maybe not literally or by definition, but someone who plays a large part and owns a large stake in the project. I didn't see anything about hiring, he's looking for a technical partner.
philwelch 16y ago
There are two (more than two, but let's stick with two) basic views of how we define concepts. One is that we define concepts by definition. A cofounder is someone who helps to found a company, therefore (by logical definition) an already-founded company cannot acquire more cofounders. The other is that we define concepts by comparison to bundles of referents. For instance, we know that Steve Wozniak, Paul Allen, Paul Graham, and Gordon Moore are all called "cofounders", and that they worked their asses off for equity. If your startup is looking to hire someone who works and gets paid just like a cofounder except without actually cofounding the company, it's looking to hire someone who resembles our "cofounder" referents even if it doesn't fit the technical definition. Hence, this controversy just comes down to different ways in which people define and use concepts. Personally, I find it useful to be able to think in both modes.

by k33n 16y ago

kristiandupont 16y ago

>If you can't afford to pay a programmer, you should probably just work your own ass off. Are you suggesting that it is unethical for people to work for equity?

k33n 16y ago
Depends on the type of equity being offered, and who it's being offered to. The equity being offered here is probably worth nothing, or worse, is a liability. Especially since it's being offered to a "young and hungry" AKA "green" programmer who doesn't know that yet.

mhm6b 16y ago

I'm looking for someone that is going to drive the site forward without having to watch over them. I'm looking for someone to take ownership of their work. Thus, equity.

enjo 16y ago
One simple request: Can you please make sure you provide adequate counseling about the tax implications of 'working for equity' that given an already-launched product can be quite onerous?
- damoncali 16y ago
  This is HUGE. The new hire can wind up with a substantial tax bill, and no cash to pay it with. Don't gloss over this!
  - grasshoper 16y ago
    Surely the government would accept equity in an ambitious young startup poised to reshape the world of online music.
    - damoncali 16y ago
      Why not. They seem to accept equity in over-priced homes.
- alnayyir 16y ago
  You assume the OP knows them himself. You're a far more optimistic person than I am.
marknutter 16y ago
Equity isn't worth shit til' the person receiving equity to build the product builds the product (thus making the equity worth something). All developers should avoid these catch 22 situations; I know I do.

coryl 16y ago

It is a cofounder though, maybe not literally or by definition, but someone who plays a large part and owns a large stake in the project. I didn't see anything about hiring, he's looking for a technical partner.

philwelch 16y ago

There are two (more than two, but let's stick with two) basic views of how we define concepts. One is that we define concepts by definition. A cofounder is someone who helps to found a company, therefore (by logical definition) an already-founded company cannot acquire more cofounders. The other is that we define concepts by comparison to bundles of referents. For instance, we know that Steve Wozniak, Paul Allen, Paul Graham, and Gordon Moore are all called "cofounders", and that they worked their asses off for equity. If your startup is looking to hire someone who works and gets paid just like a cofounder except without actually cofounding the company, it's looking to hire someone who resembles our "cofounder" referents even if it doesn't fit the technical definition. Hence, this controversy just comes down to different ways in which people define and use concepts. Personally, I find it useful to be able to think in both modes.