3 ms·
Well it sounds like comp wasn't as important to your friends at that time. If that's changed following Mailchimp's acquisition, that's on them, not Mailchimp.
by LurkingPenguin 5y ago
Well it sounds like comp wasn't as important to your friends at that time. If that's changed following Mailchimp's acquisition, that's on them, not Mailchimp.
- filoleg 5y agoAgreed. While the comp situation at MailChimp was subpar due to no-equity component, it isn’t fair to blame them for the outcome of this story here. There were no lies. The employees werent offered equity that ended up being worth nothing. They got job offers that stipulated X cash with no equity, and they willingly and knowingly accepted those offers, and they got compensated as promised. I fail to see how MailChimp is at fault here. The fact that there is Microsoft/Google/etc. and tons of other companies in the vicinity that pay way more, and grandparent poster’s friends still were staying there despite the poster’s urging and advertising, tells more about those friends than Mailchimp.
- esyir 5y agoI don't get it. One of the biggest memes around the startup scene is that equity is essentially a lottery ticket, and most lottery tickets don't win. Taking a known cash component with no equity, especially since this is already known and in the open is well established as the safe, "smart" move. Then you see this hullaballoo about not winning the lottery.
- mrgordon 5y agoWell you’re not distinguishing between two situations: 1. Someone chooses not to have equity because they want more cash now, don’t want to risk part of their compensation on equity, etc. 2. The company says their equity will never be liquid so you definitely don’t want it. You accept a cash offer with profit sharing instead. Then they sell the shares for $12 billion leaving you unknown job security and low expected future compensation while they profit off their lies