6 ms·

Significant, significant equity, co-founder CTO for venture-backed company.

tptacek 15y ago
I know you can't reasonably say what % you offered (you're still apparently a going concern), but know that people on HN are pretty accustomed to b-school types and their notions of what "significant equity" are. Again though, the top line here is, we're in the middle of a tech bubble, there are a lot of venture-backed companies, most of them are going to fail, tech comp packages have never ever been higher, competition is fierce, aggressive, and protracted. There has never been a worse time to assume you've got talent locked up. I'm sympathetic to the idea that someone who isn't 100% sold shouldn't represent themselves as 100% sold. BUT. Oftentimes, we don't demand of others the frank answers we don't want to hear. How many serious sit-down conversations did you have with your potential partner about his commitment level? Your post is "Red flag!" "Red Flag!" "Warning sign!". Well, did you react to any of those flags? If you didn't: I appreciate the idea of writing a post about the warning signs you've learned people should be looking for. However, if you ignored warning signs that the guy wasn't committed, it becomes harder to sympathize with the idea of a blog post designed to slag one guy for not signing on with your company. If you did react to the warning signs and diligently qualified and re-qualified this guy and he kept coming back saying "absolutely I am one hundred fifty percent behind you": I agree you got shafted a bit, but again remind you that tech people mostly don't give a shit. A guy who can execute on the level you're saying you needed can simply write his own ticket. The game theory suggests that you have little to gain by lashing out. ((I'm having a really procrastinate-y morning, which comes from knowing I'm working super late tonight, so sorry I'm being so noisy. At least you're not on the logo design thread I'm howling at.*)
- joshwprinceton 15y ago
  a) I'm not a b-school guy, so it's legit significant equity. b) Understood on the competitive space front c) Repeatedly, repeatedly had those conversations with him. He NEVER said he wasn't going to start, and I continuously had him reaffirm that. d) I was somewhat pot-committed at the point that the red flags really started popping up...
  - durga 15y ago
    I like the lessons. Good to keep in mind while hiring. Having said that, this might also be a good moment to reflect. How can you make yourself a more attractive founder/company to work with? [You meet a girl, she's hot, she sees you for a bit and then moves on. I wouldn't waste such a nice opportunity for self-reflection. Maybe you need to lose weight or enjoy outings more so the next hot girl sticks..]
    - chopsueyar 15y ago
      ...or give her more coke?
- borski 15y ago
  tptacek, I like you, but in this particular case Josh really wasn't in the wrong. Definitely not a 'b school' kid; I went to high school with him (so I'm biased) but I can vouch for the fact that he got royally fucked over.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I like you too, and I agree that what happened looks unfortunate and is not Josh's fault.
earl 15y ago
Yeah, but unless the offered equity was 50%... then it's a just a job and probably comes with below market salary to boot. Here's a test for being a cofounder: can one cofounder overrule the other? Then you don't have cofounders; you have a founder and an employee.
- alain94040 15y ago
  Bad advice (and mathematically impossible). 25% definitely qualifies you as a co-founder, if you joined and worked for no cash and all equity, before the first funding event.
  - earl 15y ago
    No, 25% makes you a sucker -- as much risk as the true founder but 66% less reward and 0 real control. (Obviously assuming 2 founders. If 4 founders then my point doesn't apply.)
- gabyar 15y ago
  Not true. If you have investors and two cofounders, both cofounders will have less than 50% even with an even split. And a cofounder coming on after a lot of work has been done doesn't deserve a full equity split.

I know you can't reasonably say what % you offered (you're still apparently a going concern), but know that people on HN are pretty accustomed to b-school types and their notions of what "significant equity" are. Again though, the top line here is, we're in the middle of a tech bubble, there are a lot of venture-backed companies, most of them are going to fail, tech comp packages have never ever been higher, competition is fierce, aggressive, and protracted. There has never been a worse time to assume you've got talent locked up. I'm sympathetic to the idea that someone who isn't 100% sold shouldn't represent themselves as 100% sold. BUT. Oftentimes, we don't demand of others the frank answers we don't want to hear. How many serious sit-down conversations did you have with your potential partner about his commitment level? Your post is "Red flag!" "Red Flag!" "Warning sign!". Well, did you react to any of those flags? If you didn't: I appreciate the idea of writing a post about the warning signs you've learned people should be looking for. However, if you ignored warning signs that the guy wasn't committed, it becomes harder to sympathize with the idea of a blog post designed to slag one guy for not signing on with your company. If you did react to the warning signs and diligently qualified and re-qualified this guy and he kept coming back saying "absolutely I am one hundred fifty percent behind you": I agree you got shafted a bit, but again remind you that tech people mostly don't give a shit. A guy who can execute on the level you're saying you needed can simply write his own ticket. The game theory suggests that you have little to gain by lashing out. ((I'm having a really procrastinate-y morning, which comes from knowing I'm working super late tonight, so sorry I'm being so noisy. At least you're not on the logo design thread I'm howling at.*)

joshwprinceton 15y ago
a) I'm not a b-school guy, so it's legit significant equity. b) Understood on the competitive space front c) Repeatedly, repeatedly had those conversations with him. He NEVER said he wasn't going to start, and I continuously had him reaffirm that. d) I was somewhat pot-committed at the point that the red flags really started popping up...
- durga 15y ago
  I like the lessons. Good to keep in mind while hiring. Having said that, this might also be a good moment to reflect. How can you make yourself a more attractive founder/company to work with? [You meet a girl, she's hot, she sees you for a bit and then moves on. I wouldn't waste such a nice opportunity for self-reflection. Maybe you need to lose weight or enjoy outings more so the next hot girl sticks..]
  - chopsueyar 15y ago
    ...or give her more coke?
borski 15y ago
tptacek, I like you, but in this particular case Josh really wasn't in the wrong. Definitely not a 'b school' kid; I went to high school with him (so I'm biased) but I can vouch for the fact that he got royally fucked over.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I like you too, and I agree that what happened looks unfortunate and is not Josh's fault.

earl 15y ago

Yeah, but unless the offered equity was 50%... then it's a just a job and probably comes with below market salary to boot. Here's a test for being a cofounder: can one cofounder overrule the other? Then you don't have cofounders; you have a founder and an employee.

alain94040 15y ago
Bad advice (and mathematically impossible). 25% definitely qualifies you as a co-founder, if you joined and worked for no cash and all equity, before the first funding event.
- earl 15y ago
  No, 25% makes you a sucker -- as much risk as the true founder but 66% less reward and 0 real control. (Obviously assuming 2 founders. If 4 founders then my point doesn't apply.)
gabyar 15y ago
Not true. If you have investors and two cofounders, both cofounders will have less than 50% even with an even split. And a cofounder coming on after a lot of work has been done doesn't deserve a full equity split.