3 ms·

> If someone is demanding a $450K/year base compensation as a co-founder I see no mention of numbers aside from fractions in my comment. This is truly jumping

> If someone is demanding a $450K/year base compensation as a co-founder I see no mention of numbers aside from fractions in my comment. This is truly jumping the shark in order to form an argument. > A co-founder would want to focus on equity and take something like $150K/year so the company could hire 1-2 additional engineers with the other $300K/year. This is a rather bold assertion and you're stating it with the tone of authority and general application across the entire spectrum of what makes a startup, in any sector, of any flavor. You're also applying your own personal bias as a statement on a very personal situation offered anecdotally. Both are neither fair nor wise. Startups come in a million flavors. What a person's responsibilities to their family are does not equate to not being "cut out for the risk-taking," as risks themselves are of great variety, nor does a co-founder need to focus on equity alone. I'm fortunate to have a wide network of colleagues that include co-founders that are in the game for long-term viability and stability to provide equitable income for themselves and their families, and their employees, as well as a return to investors. It's clear that your view is one through the lens of "to the moon on the back of a unicorn," where in fact there are many different long-term strategies. I personally find the unicorn startup path distasteful and disingenuous, as there's such an incredible rate of failure. Modesty and consistent, steady growth are now highly underrated. Overall your message echoes that of the proposed co-founder I mentioned in my original post, and is antithetical with my views on business and startups in general. To those who may be reading the parent above, know that there are many successful startups that don't subscribe to the same philosophy.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> I see no mention of numbers aside from fractions in my comment. This is truly jumping the shark in order to form an argument. I wasn't talking about you, I was speaking in generic terms to make an example. You didn't give us any numbers so it's useless to discuss your specific scenario. I commented above on the lack of numbers and provided more examples for different scenarios about your situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30517360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30517360 > What a person's responsibilities to their family are does not equate to not being "cut out for the risk-taking," I think you've missed the point. Nobody here is saying that founders need to neglect their families or whatever. If the startup was trying to pay you a number so low that you couldn't make ends meet, then that's a problem with the startup. > I personally find the unicorn startup path distasteful and disingenuous, as there's such an incredible rate of failure. I think it's pretty clear that you're not a good match for startups. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with that. However, it doesn't make sense to blame the startup founder for (presumably, impossible to say without numbers) having standard startup expectations or startups for being risky in general. If you don't like startups and you value immediate compensation above all else, that's fine! Nothing wrong with that! You're just not a good match for a startup co-founder position. That said, the founder's primary compensation is in the equity. Expecting cash compensation to match big companies is a no-go for early stage founders.
- andrew_ 5y ago
  > I think it's pretty clear that you're not a good match for startups. It's pretty clear you have little knowledge of startups outside of those seeking unicorn trajectory. That's to your detriment. > You're just not a good match for a startup co-founder position. This is just an absolutely incredulous and naive take, and it shows some of the worst bubble mentality and arrogance that this industry has to offer. I've spent my career within startups, I've cofounded several you've probably never heard of that are still going and are still successful. But because they're not unicorns, never aspired to be one, and don't fit the mold of your specific view of what a startup is - well, clearly this person isn't fit. I'm not sure how anyone can take your opinions on the topic seriously after you've revealed yourself in this way. In a way, I pity that your view is so narrow. Again, to anyone reading this thread - it doesn't have to be the way they're describing it. Life and business are not confined to the stereotypes and tropes of Silicon Valley startup culture, and you don't have to subscribe to their tenets to be successful.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> I see no mention of numbers aside from fractions in my comment. This is truly jumping the shark in order to form an argument. I wasn't talking about you, I was speaking in generic terms to make an example. You didn't give us any numbers so it's useless to discuss your specific scenario. I commented above on the lack of numbers and provided more examples for different scenarios about your situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30517360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30517360 > What a person's responsibilities to their family are does not equate to not being "cut out for the risk-taking," I think you've missed the point. Nobody here is saying that founders need to neglect their families or whatever. If the startup was trying to pay you a number so low that you couldn't make ends meet, then that's a problem with the startup. > I personally find the unicorn startup path distasteful and disingenuous, as there's such an incredible rate of failure. I think it's pretty clear that you're not a good match for startups. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with that. However, it doesn't make sense to blame the startup founder for (presumably, impossible to say without numbers) having standard startup expectations or startups for being risky in general. If you don't like startups and you value immediate compensation above all else, that's fine! Nothing wrong with that! You're just not a good match for a startup co-founder position. That said, the founder's primary compensation is in the equity. Expecting cash compensation to match big companies is a no-go for early stage founders.

andrew_ 5y ago
> I think it's pretty clear that you're not a good match for startups. It's pretty clear you have little knowledge of startups outside of those seeking unicorn trajectory. That's to your detriment. > You're just not a good match for a startup co-founder position. This is just an absolutely incredulous and naive take, and it shows some of the worst bubble mentality and arrogance that this industry has to offer. I've spent my career within startups, I've cofounded several you've probably never heard of that are still going and are still successful. But because they're not unicorns, never aspired to be one, and don't fit the mold of your specific view of what a startup is - well, clearly this person isn't fit. I'm not sure how anyone can take your opinions on the topic seriously after you've revealed yourself in this way. In a way, I pity that your view is so narrow. Again, to anyone reading this thread - it doesn't have to be the way they're describing it. Life and business are not confined to the stereotypes and tropes of Silicon Valley startup culture, and you don't have to subscribe to their tenets to be successful.