4 ms·

Wait, so your investors lose money, your employees (probably just a few) got at most $80k, and you get to retire? I mean, congrats on the hustle, but I wouldn’t

Wait, so your investors lose money, your employees (probably just a few) got at most $80k, and you get to retire? I mean, congrats on the hustle, but I wouldn’t waste your time trying to make it look good for everyone else.

gadders 6y ago
The founder usually carries the majority of the risk as well.
- remote_phone 6y ago
  It sounds like he put in no money of his own. He would not have made $3.7M without the hard work of his employees. And yet when it came down to it, he took almost all the money for himself.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - cloverich 6y ago
    If he worked for free, he _did_ put in money of his own. So it depends on what his salary cut was, and for how long. I've been thinking of starting a company for ages, but there's no escaping this fact -- I have to give up a substantial amount of money, and the most likely scenario is my company won't take off (much less make a profit, and even less an exit). I agree employees should be compensated but ultimately, if they get a salary on day one, it is a very different calculation. I've worked as an early stage employee, and the salary cut I took was ~30% for ~1 year. I may get a payout from that, perhaps 1-5x and to me that seems a pretty reasonable balance. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - cam0 6y ago
    Those jobs that the employees chose to take would not have existed without Josh actually starting the business. He created something. He took the initiative to be a builder and took the risk and responsibility that comes along with that. The investors wrote a check that amounts to peanuts for them. The employees put in their 8hr days and collected a regular paycheck. The founder is the person who deserves the payout here.
nxmnxm99 6y ago
You people really don’t understand the concept of risk do you
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  From what I've seen here in the past, this is true. The weak, oft-repeated argument is that employees also assume risk and yada, yada, yada, while completely ignoring the fact that the risk assumed by employees statistically insignificant when compared to the risk assumed by founders.
tehwebguy 6y ago
The employees got paid the wage they agreed on, too. How much more of the sale do you think they should have been given?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
VectorLock 6y ago
It seems very strange to me that their investors went "you know what.. its only money.. we'll take a loss so you can retire." Was there some caveat that prevented them from taking their share? A VC leaving money on the table out of the goodness of their hearts just seems inexplicable. If it don't make dollars it don't make sense.
dang 6y ago
Please review the site guidelines and stick to the rules when posting to HN. Note this one: Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25045906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25045906.

gadders 6y ago

The founder usually carries the majority of the risk as well.

remote_phone 6y ago
It sounds like he put in no money of his own. He would not have made $3.7M without the hard work of his employees. And yet when it came down to it, he took almost all the money for himself.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cloverich 6y ago
  If he worked for free, he _did_ put in money of his own. So it depends on what his salary cut was, and for how long. I've been thinking of starting a company for ages, but there's no escaping this fact -- I have to give up a substantial amount of money, and the most likely scenario is my company won't take off (much less make a profit, and even less an exit). I agree employees should be compensated but ultimately, if they get a salary on day one, it is a very different calculation. I've worked as an early stage employee, and the salary cut I took was ~30% for ~1 year. I may get a payout from that, perhaps 1-5x and to me that seems a pretty reasonable balance. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- cam0 6y ago
  Those jobs that the employees chose to take would not have existed without Josh actually starting the business. He created something. He took the initiative to be a builder and took the risk and responsibility that comes along with that. The investors wrote a check that amounts to peanuts for them. The employees put in their 8hr days and collected a regular paycheck. The founder is the person who deserves the payout here.

nxmnxm99 6y ago

You people really don’t understand the concept of risk do you

stronglikedan 6y ago
From what I've seen here in the past, this is true. The weak, oft-repeated argument is that employees also assume risk and yada, yada, yada, while completely ignoring the fact that the risk assumed by employees statistically insignificant when compared to the risk assumed by founders.

tehwebguy 6y ago

The employees got paid the wage they agreed on, too. How much more of the sale do you think they should have been given?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

VectorLock 6y ago

It seems very strange to me that their investors went "you know what.. its only money.. we'll take a loss so you can retire." Was there some caveat that prevented them from taking their share? A VC leaving money on the table out of the goodness of their hearts just seems inexplicable. If it don't make dollars it don't make sense.

dang 6y ago

Please review the site guidelines and stick to the rules when posting to HN. Note this one: Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25045906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25045906.