4 ms·
>Or they structured the deal in the only way under which they could get any money at all. Maybe starting a business for which the only way to get funding is by
by navigatesol 7y ago
>Or they structured the deal in the only way under which they could get any money at all.
Maybe starting a business for which the only way to get funding is by screwing over your employees is exactly the problem here?
- mlyle 7y agoI structured the deals all the same-- with the best price I could get each round, and 1x non-participating liquidity preference. edit: Actually, the last round of my first company was 1.5x non-participating, so a little worse-- it was the best we could do. Didn't matter because it didn't get triggered. My first couple companies won. My last company lost. Good luck ever getting capital without that liquidity preference-- it doesn't get done. My employees got nothing for equity; I lost money overall even when you count my salary. Investors got paid back a portion of what they invested, but lost money too. Everyone lost. Investors and founders were negative, employees were 0 on equity but received their salary/bonus comp. I would have been a hell of a lot better off personally without the liquidity preference, but is that fair? If the company ends up producing less money than was invested in it, it seems to make sense that the investors should get the money.
- sokoloff 7y agoIf a set of people collectively take $1MM of investment and turn it into $200K, how much extra bonus on top of their salary should they be paid for that outcome in order to avoid being screwed over in your opinion?
- mlyle 7y agoI guess you wanted to just chuck some insults and move on.