3 ms·

I think the larger the company the longer it takes to ramp up, but at a small startup you can have a big impact in month one. I've always found the one year cl

by breck 5y ago

I think the larger the company the longer it takes to ramp up, but at a small startup you can have a big impact in month one. I've always found the one year cliff funny, since investors don't have a cliff. I've been hoping startups would start doing this for a while, and think DD is really a pioneer here and think this will become a trend. I know personally I turned down a few opportunities at promising startups simply because I was young, in my twenties, and a year felt like a long time. I found the probability of a life changing event that would require me to move and leave a company too high, and didn't want to bust my butt for 10 months with a salary cut, then have to leave and get no equity. So I said "no" to a few opportunities that otherwise would have been great. Currently incentives first your first year are to focus on not getting fired. Now it can be on making an impact.

RussianCow 5y ago
> I know personally I turned down a few opportunities at promising startups simply because I was young, in my twenties, and a year felt like a long time. I found the probability of a life changing event that would require me to move and leave a company too high, and didn't want to bust my butt for 10 months with a salary cut, then have to leave and get no equity. So I said "no" to a few opportunities that otherwise would have been great. I'm curious: Did you try to negotiate? I have had luck negotiating the terms of equity in the past, but I'm not sure if my experience generalizes. > Currently incentives first your first year are to focus on not getting fired. Now it can be on making an impact. If someone is so unmotivated at a job that they're not making an impact, I don't know if removing the cliff would help; they likely shouldn't have taken the job in the first place. If you join a new place and realize that it's a poor fit, it's usually best to cut your losses and move elsewhere immediately, even if your equity hasn't vested. The presence of a cliff doesn't significantly change that math. I agree about missing out on hires because of the cliff, I just don't think it's that unreasonable to have one.
- breck 5y ago
  > I'm curious: Did you try to negotiate? Not back then. Was not bright enough. That would have been smart. I think if I had phrased it as "I'm very excited about your potential, but I'm young and black swan events may happen and I might have to leave early, how about a 6 month cliff?". Probably would have worked. > If someone is so unmotivated at a job that they're not making an impact I didn't phrase it well. What I'm getting at is that risk taking is disincentivized your first year. You might have an idea that could have an upside of 100, but might also lead to a loss of -10, and in year one it's best to sit on that idea because if it were to fail you'd take a big personal loss. I think you have misaligned incentives that first year where the number one goal is not to risk rocking the boat, and number two goal is impact.
  - RussianCow 5y ago
    > What I'm getting at is that risk taking is disincentivized your first year. Ah yeah, that makes sense and I didn't think of it that way. I guess I personally don't look at it like that, but I can definitely see and appreciate the thought process.
gnicholas 5y ago
> I've always found the one year cliff funny, since investors don't have a cliff. Investors don’t have a cliff because they give their money upfront. How would a cliff work in that situation?

by breck 5y ago

RussianCow 5y ago

> I know personally I turned down a few opportunities at promising startups simply because I was young, in my twenties, and a year felt like a long time. I found the probability of a life changing event that would require me to move and leave a company too high, and didn't want to bust my butt for 10 months with a salary cut, then have to leave and get no equity. So I said "no" to a few opportunities that otherwise would have been great. I'm curious: Did you try to negotiate? I have had luck negotiating the terms of equity in the past, but I'm not sure if my experience generalizes. > Currently incentives first your first year are to focus on not getting fired. Now it can be on making an impact. If someone is so unmotivated at a job that they're not making an impact, I don't know if removing the cliff would help; they likely shouldn't have taken the job in the first place. If you join a new place and realize that it's a poor fit, it's usually best to cut your losses and move elsewhere immediately, even if your equity hasn't vested. The presence of a cliff doesn't significantly change that math. I agree about missing out on hires because of the cliff, I just don't think it's that unreasonable to have one.

breck 5y ago
> I'm curious: Did you try to negotiate? Not back then. Was not bright enough. That would have been smart. I think if I had phrased it as "I'm very excited about your potential, but I'm young and black swan events may happen and I might have to leave early, how about a 6 month cliff?". Probably would have worked. > If someone is so unmotivated at a job that they're not making an impact I didn't phrase it well. What I'm getting at is that risk taking is disincentivized your first year. You might have an idea that could have an upside of 100, but might also lead to a loss of -10, and in year one it's best to sit on that idea because if it were to fail you'd take a big personal loss. I think you have misaligned incentives that first year where the number one goal is not to risk rocking the boat, and number two goal is impact.
- RussianCow 5y ago
  > What I'm getting at is that risk taking is disincentivized your first year. Ah yeah, that makes sense and I didn't think of it that way. I guess I personally don't look at it like that, but I can definitely see and appreciate the thought process.

gnicholas 5y ago

> I've always found the one year cliff funny, since investors don't have a cliff. Investors don’t have a cliff because they give their money upfront. How would a cliff work in that situation?