4 ms·
Whether they promised to sell, or not sell, either way, they never promised equity. Not promising equity if you never sell can be a sensible decision, because
by IkmoIkmo 5y ago
Whether they promised to sell, or not sell, either way, they never promised equity.
Not promising equity if you never sell can be a sensible decision, because otherwise you create expectations of a cash-out that never comes.
Not promising equity if you do sell can be a sensible decision, because you keep more of the money to yourself. As long as you're transparant about not selling, employees can evaluate your remaining value proposition (salary, profit-sharing, perks) and decide whether it's worth it.
All 12k employees evaluated that value proposition and said it's worth it.
At some point the founders changed their mind. And that's okay, people change their minds. Unless they lied about it from the beginning and tricked people into a company vision they knew was bs, but the evidence doesn't clearly point to that.
- mrgordon 5y ago> Not promising equity if you do sell can be a sensible decision, because you keep more of the money to yourself. As long as you're transparant about not selling Yes it’s always sensible to take more money for yourself lol. But they weren’t transparent about not selling (they said they wouldn’t and then they did so they lied). Hence why the employees feel screwed
- smiths1999 5y agoOr they changed their mind (which they are entitled to do).
- qeternity 5y agoWhy do employees feel screwed? They didn't have equity. Why does it matter?
- Aeolun 5y agoHave you ever been part of a company that was acquired (by a hideous corporate behemoth no less)? It’s fucking horrible. Suddenly you find that requesting a new pen is a 3 day process and the previously free coffee in the cantina now costs 20 cents.
- goodpoint 5y agoIt does not matter if the founders changed their mind or lied from the beginning: the result is that they denied the employees what was promised. > All 12k employees evaluated that value proposition and said it's worth it. No, the value proposition included the promise that was later broken.
- joncampbelldev 5y agoI don't see the promise impacting an employee's decision at all: 1) Founders promise not to sell. Employee is offered salary without equity. 2) Founders say nothing about selling. Employee is offered salary without equity. In both cases the employee has lost nothing of value. Someone made the founders a pretty ridiculous offer ($12bn for $700mn revenue company). Why should they refuse? No one is being harmed by the sale apart from some employees incorrectly assuming a broken promise means they deserve a chunk of the sale .... a sale that they would NEVER have benefitted from regardless of the original promise. Compare this to the usual startup "promise" of low salary but equity and fingers crossed we'll sell. Presumbly mailchimp had to offer higher salaries to compensate for the lack of equity offered. And if they didn't then that was a silly choice by the employee (low salary and no equity).
- IkmoIkmo 5y agoEdit for correction: I should've said "As long as you're transparant about not giving equity*" instead of "not selling"