3 ms·

> but they don't do equity If it's an independent business since 1997 the implication is they're not for sale, so equity wouldn't be likely to achieve any liqu

> but they don't do equity If it's an independent business since 1997 the implication is they're not for sale, so equity wouldn't be likely to achieve any liquidity, hence relatively meaningless.

runako 5y ago
This only follows for businesses that do not pay a dividend. Assuming Panic is profitable, equity could easily result in profit-sharing or dividends. Facilitating employee share sales would also allow employees to take on more or less Panic risk depending on their personal tolerance. Other companies have done similar for decades/centuries.
- mushufasa 5y ago
  they do profit-sharing bonuses it seems
FireBeyond 5y ago
Just like Mailchimp! "We're never going to sell! Oh, hold up, you said twelve billion? With a B? Uhh, okay, we need to talk."
- echelon 5y ago
  Exactly what came to my mind as well. https://medium.com/project-tinker/mailchimp-just-screwed-over-their-employees-c1ea745814b2 https://medium.com/project-tinker/mailchimp-just-screwed-ove... https://slashdot.org/story/21/11/11/1634237/intuit-slashes-pay-and-cuts-health-benefits-of-mailchimp-employees https://slashdot.org/story/21/11/11/1634237/intuit-slashes-p... https://www.businessinsider.com/insider-weekly-mailchimp-uber-ron-klain-9-2021 https://www.businessinsider.com/insider-weekly-mailchimp-ube... Similar situation with Epic and other firms taking on lots of investment, but freezing employees out of any gains.
  - cercatrova 5y ago
    That employees are "screwed over" is always a weird argument to me. Presumably these employees are free to choose the company they work for, and so they could've chosen companies that provide equity over those who don't. I was under the impression that Mailchimp paid well through salary and bonuses. To be compensated for many years and then cry foul when the founders exit and the employee having gotten nothing (because, they chose to work there and not elsewhere) is to want to have one's cake and to eat it too.
    - zorpner 5y ago
      The founders repeatedly promised (and in at least one case I know of, convinced someone to work there based on that promise) that they would not sell. Perhaps the implication is that we should not believe the promises of founders.
      - cercatrova 5y ago
        Promises don't mean anything unless contractually obligated. One should always look out for oneself in terms of what's actually written down, not what's said or implied.
    - iamdbtoo 5y ago
      What about the part where the founders actively steered employees away from equity? What about the part where they lied?
      - cercatrova 5y ago
        See my reply to the sibling comment [0]. It is not the responsibility of the founders to tell you the truth, they do as they will. It's is always our responsibility to discern the truth from the lies, through what's actually written down. Anyone, the world even, can lie to us, that doesn't mean we must believe them implicitly. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30068708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30068708
- jonwinstanley 5y ago
  Haha - yes. To be fair I think $12bn would change anyone's mind!

> but they don't do equity If it's an independent business since 1997 the implication is they're not for sale, so equity wouldn't be likely to achieve any liquidity, hence relatively meaningless.

runako 5y ago

This only follows for businesses that do not pay a dividend. Assuming Panic is profitable, equity could easily result in profit-sharing or dividends. Facilitating employee share sales would also allow employees to take on more or less Panic risk depending on their personal tolerance. Other companies have done similar for decades/centuries.

mushufasa 5y ago
they do profit-sharing bonuses it seems

FireBeyond 5y ago

Just like Mailchimp! "We're never going to sell! Oh, hold up, you said twelve billion? With a B? Uhh, okay, we need to talk."

echelon 5y ago
Exactly what came to my mind as well. https://medium.com/project-tinker/mailchimp-just-screwed-over-their-employees-c1ea745814b2 https://medium.com/project-tinker/mailchimp-just-screwed-ove... https://slashdot.org/story/21/11/11/1634237/intuit-slashes-pay-and-cuts-health-benefits-of-mailchimp-employees https://slashdot.org/story/21/11/11/1634237/intuit-slashes-p... https://www.businessinsider.com/insider-weekly-mailchimp-uber-ron-klain-9-2021 https://www.businessinsider.com/insider-weekly-mailchimp-ube... Similar situation with Epic and other firms taking on lots of investment, but freezing employees out of any gains.
- cercatrova 5y ago
  That employees are "screwed over" is always a weird argument to me. Presumably these employees are free to choose the company they work for, and so they could've chosen companies that provide equity over those who don't. I was under the impression that Mailchimp paid well through salary and bonuses. To be compensated for many years and then cry foul when the founders exit and the employee having gotten nothing (because, they chose to work there and not elsewhere) is to want to have one's cake and to eat it too.
  - zorpner 5y ago
    The founders repeatedly promised (and in at least one case I know of, convinced someone to work there based on that promise) that they would not sell. Perhaps the implication is that we should not believe the promises of founders.
    - cercatrova 5y ago
      Promises don't mean anything unless contractually obligated. One should always look out for oneself in terms of what's actually written down, not what's said or implied.
  - iamdbtoo 5y ago
    What about the part where the founders actively steered employees away from equity? What about the part where they lied?
    - cercatrova 5y ago
      See my reply to the sibling comment [0]. It is not the responsibility of the founders to tell you the truth, they do as they will. It's is always our responsibility to discern the truth from the lies, through what's actually written down. Anyone, the world even, can lie to us, that doesn't mean we must believe them implicitly. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30068708 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30068708
jonwinstanley 5y ago
Haha - yes. To be fair I think $12bn would change anyone's mind!