4 ms·

I didn't think it needed clarification, but "they wouldn't be able to hire anyone" does not literally mean they would have zero candidates. It's expressing the

I didn't think it needed clarification, but "they wouldn't be able to hire anyone" does not literally mean they would have zero candidates. It's expressing the fact that they would be severely limiting their talent pool by offering 0 equity in this industry, where equity is one of the reasons people are willing to take a risk on a startup.

BaseballPhysics 5y ago
> where equity is one of the reasons people are willing to take a risk on a startup. They're not a startup. They're a profitable, mature, 15 year old company of 100-150 people. Working there isn't "taking a risk", so there's no need to entice people with hazard pay.
- hamburglar 5y ago
  And yet those early employees who joined before they were profitable took a risk, and likely below-market rates, and got equity. Because that’s one proven strategy a startup can use to try to find people who can get them to not-a-startup. I never thought I’d see the day where hacker news, of all places, forgot how this works.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - BaseballPhysics 5y ago
    > And yet those early employees who joined before they were profitable took a risk, and likely below-market rates, and got equity. Because that’s one proven strategy a startup can use to try to find people who can get them to not-a-startup. I was interpreting the original comment that kicked this off ("Would they have ever managed to hire anyone if they didn't?") as referring to their hiring practices now, not 15 years ago when they were first starting up. Granted I may have misinterpreted the nature of their remark. Obviously back then, yeah, folks would probably have been given an equity stake. So we're arguing different points. What I personally don't know is if they were continuing to give out options to new hires to this day. Based on my own experience in a startup-now-going-concern, my bet is "no", given that it would no longer be strictly necessary to entice folks to join the company, but I could be wrong.
    - hamburglar 5y ago
      I definitely interpreted it the other way, owing to the "would they have ever" part. The original subthread is about their motivation for an exit. The existence of early key employees that got (potentially a lot of) equity is quite relevant to that topic, and the sentiment that it would have been harder to hire people in this industry without offering equity at a startup is not wrong.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Your critique appears to assume that every tech company or startup begins by offering below market rates. That's not universal, and who knows, maybe they had a seed round and were able to pay people appropriately. They were also founded in 2008, it was a different time in the market anyway. Looking at Crunchbase's list of articles, the earliest news story from May '08 mentions that it was a four-man startup that was completely virtual. Don't know how that lasted, but not having an office certainly frees up the budget to pay people. https://gigaom.com/2008/05/07/bandcamp-clubwiki/ https://gigaom.com/2008/05/07/bandcamp-clubwiki/
    - hamburglar 5y ago
      My critique assumes no such thing, it just claims it's likely. That's why I used the word "likely." I certainly hope it's not controversial to suggest that VC-backed startups, especially thrifty ones like bandcamp allegedly is, very commonly offer lower salaries to extend runway and make up for it in the form of equity options. My last startup offer actually gave me a window of salary ranges and let me choose my salary based on how much equity I wanted. The more salary, the less equity.

BaseballPhysics 5y ago

> where equity is one of the reasons people are willing to take a risk on a startup. They're not a startup. They're a profitable, mature, 15 year old company of 100-150 people. Working there isn't "taking a risk", so there's no need to entice people with hazard pay.

hamburglar 5y ago
And yet those early employees who joined before they were profitable took a risk, and likely below-market rates, and got equity. Because that’s one proven strategy a startup can use to try to find people who can get them to not-a-startup. I never thought I’d see the day where hacker news, of all places, forgot how this works.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- BaseballPhysics 5y ago
  > And yet those early employees who joined before they were profitable took a risk, and likely below-market rates, and got equity. Because that’s one proven strategy a startup can use to try to find people who can get them to not-a-startup. I was interpreting the original comment that kicked this off ("Would they have ever managed to hire anyone if they didn't?") as referring to their hiring practices now, not 15 years ago when they were first starting up. Granted I may have misinterpreted the nature of their remark. Obviously back then, yeah, folks would probably have been given an equity stake. So we're arguing different points. What I personally don't know is if they were continuing to give out options to new hires to this day. Based on my own experience in a startup-now-going-concern, my bet is "no", given that it would no longer be strictly necessary to entice folks to join the company, but I could be wrong.
  - hamburglar 5y ago
    I definitely interpreted it the other way, owing to the "would they have ever" part. The original subthread is about their motivation for an exit. The existence of early key employees that got (potentially a lot of) equity is quite relevant to that topic, and the sentiment that it would have been harder to hire people in this industry without offering equity at a startup is not wrong.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Your critique appears to assume that every tech company or startup begins by offering below market rates. That's not universal, and who knows, maybe they had a seed round and were able to pay people appropriately. They were also founded in 2008, it was a different time in the market anyway. Looking at Crunchbase's list of articles, the earliest news story from May '08 mentions that it was a four-man startup that was completely virtual. Don't know how that lasted, but not having an office certainly frees up the budget to pay people. https://gigaom.com/2008/05/07/bandcamp-clubwiki/ https://gigaom.com/2008/05/07/bandcamp-clubwiki/
  - hamburglar 5y ago
    My critique assumes no such thing, it just claims it's likely. That's why I used the word "likely." I certainly hope it's not controversial to suggest that VC-backed startups, especially thrifty ones like bandcamp allegedly is, very commonly offer lower salaries to extend runway and make up for it in the form of equity options. My last startup offer actually gave me a window of salary ranges and let me choose my salary based on how much equity I wanted. The more salary, the less equity.