3 ms·

I'd like to recommend something: discourage 1-year cliffs in vesting schedules. I recently joined a BigCo where your stock vests monthly as soon as you start. I

I'd like to recommend something: discourage 1-year cliffs in vesting schedules. I recently joined a BigCo where your stock vests monthly as soon as you start. I felt comfortable accepting that offer because I knew I could quit without leaving money on the table if I hated it. Before BigCo, I was at a YC startup for 8 months that I disliked working at, but felt that I needed to hit the 1-year mark for the equity. That startup was generous enough to ignore my cliff when I told them how I felt, but I don't think most companies would do this. I think moving cliffs to 3 or 6 months would make startup opportunities much more interesting to job-seekers.

snowmaker 8y ago
That's an interesting proposal that we will discuss. Thanks.
- masonicb00m 8y ago
  I second eliminating the one year cliff. This is becoming market-standard. And not just for the employee's benefit. It's a lot easier to tell management their heads are up their asses when you're vested. Good for the company.
jiveturkey 8y ago
Good one. This is entirely consistent with the thought behind the 10 year exercise -- don't shackle the employee.
docker_up 8y ago
Sounds like Cap Table hell. If you're only there for 3 months, why should you get rewarded when chances are you didn't contribute anything to the company? I think a 1 year cliff makes even more sense for a startup than an established company because you really should contribute something before hitting the cap table as someone with employee options.
- mariusz331 8y ago
  I think you can contribute a meaningful amount to a startup in 3 months. Arguably the top reason to join a startup is to make faster impact. I'm not saying this is possible at all startups, but most startups yes. Options/equity are a component of your compensation and I'm questioning the reasons we wait a year to get it. I think it would be more employee-friendly to smooth out the vesting schedule. Startups seem to be having a hard time finding talent (probably why this thread was started). Everyone already thinks you work on more interesting problems and make more impact at a startup, but it seems like those reasons alone aren't attractive enough right now. If startups can't pay $300k/yr cash, then they need to think outside the box to entice people to join. What burned me working at startups was the 1-year cliff and 3-month exercise window after leaving. I'd consider working for a startup again if those two disadvantages changed. Until then, I'm very happy at BigCorp.
  - docker_up 8y ago
    I disagree, I don't think anyone can contribute meaningfully in 3 months. I think a one year cliff is perfectly reasonable for a startup. We will agree to disagree, but I don't think any startup will agree with you, it rewards people who stick around for too short a period of time and makes their cap table much harder to maintain.

snowmaker 8y ago

That's an interesting proposal that we will discuss. Thanks.

masonicb00m 8y ago
I second eliminating the one year cliff. This is becoming market-standard. And not just for the employee's benefit. It's a lot easier to tell management their heads are up their asses when you're vested. Good for the company.

jiveturkey 8y ago

Good one. This is entirely consistent with the thought behind the 10 year exercise -- don't shackle the employee.

docker_up 8y ago

Sounds like Cap Table hell. If you're only there for 3 months, why should you get rewarded when chances are you didn't contribute anything to the company? I think a 1 year cliff makes even more sense for a startup than an established company because you really should contribute something before hitting the cap table as someone with employee options.

mariusz331 8y ago
I think you can contribute a meaningful amount to a startup in 3 months. Arguably the top reason to join a startup is to make faster impact. I'm not saying this is possible at all startups, but most startups yes. Options/equity are a component of your compensation and I'm questioning the reasons we wait a year to get it. I think it would be more employee-friendly to smooth out the vesting schedule. Startups seem to be having a hard time finding talent (probably why this thread was started). Everyone already thinks you work on more interesting problems and make more impact at a startup, but it seems like those reasons alone aren't attractive enough right now. If startups can't pay $300k/yr cash, then they need to think outside the box to entice people to join. What burned me working at startups was the 1-year cliff and 3-month exercise window after leaving. I'd consider working for a startup again if those two disadvantages changed. Until then, I'm very happy at BigCorp.
- docker_up 8y ago
  I disagree, I don't think anyone can contribute meaningfully in 3 months. I think a one year cliff is perfectly reasonable for a startup. We will agree to disagree, but I don't think any startup will agree with you, it rewards people who stick around for too short a period of time and makes their cap table much harder to maintain.