3 ms·

First - there's no harm in bargaining. If you like the team and believe in the company, but you think the offer is a little low, then tell them that. If you hav

First - there's no harm in bargaining. If you like the team and believe in the company, but you think the offer is a little low, then tell them that. If you have some number in your head then ask for a little more and bargain to something closer to what you want. 3% + salary is a better offer than I've seen for a first employee. I've seen 3% with no salary and salary with a lower stake, but not both together. It means they are serious about bringing you on board and consider you more than just a first employee. It's often possible to bargain away salary for equity or vice-versa. Given your place in the company, you could ask to be a cofounder with a higher equity stake. But be prepared for the sacrifices involved. It could mean a pay cut and you will be making a lower salary than your employees for a long time. Older engineers tend to care more about the salary than the equity. If this applies to you, you could also bargain away some of your equity for salary. Maybe $80k a year with a 2% stake in a good company sounds better to you then $40k and a 3% stake.

tptacek 15y ago
I think 3% is a better employee allocation than many people on HN probably think it is. But: He's not just first employee; he's the sole technical team member. He doesn't say what he was making prior to the offer, but it may have been less than 1/2 of market rate. If they're in the valley, 80k is also way below the market for anyone who could execute as sole tech person in a viable startup. ... on the other hand, it depends on the product, too. If the company is building something that a RentACoder could execute, then sole tech person or not, he's replaceable and in a poor position to bargain.
- jacoblyles 15y ago
  Don't forget - he's been getting paid, and will continue to get paid, while the founders are funding the company out of their own pockets. The founders are clearly making sacrifices and taking personal risks that he is not, which puts him into the "employee" bucket.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Yep, I think you make a good point. I still think 3% is too low for the person on the team who everyone else depends on to actually execute the product.
    - jacoblyles 15y ago
      Well, it depends on how difficult he would be to replace. It sounds like a difficult project, so he probably has good standing to push for a bit more.

tptacek 15y ago

I think 3% is a better employee allocation than many people on HN probably think it is. But: He's not just first employee; he's the sole technical team member. He doesn't say what he was making prior to the offer, but it may have been less than 1/2 of market rate. If they're in the valley, 80k is also way below the market for anyone who could execute as sole tech person in a viable startup. ... on the other hand, it depends on the product, too. If the company is building something that a RentACoder could execute, then sole tech person or not, he's replaceable and in a poor position to bargain.

jacoblyles 15y ago
Don't forget - he's been getting paid, and will continue to get paid, while the founders are funding the company out of their own pockets. The founders are clearly making sacrifices and taking personal risks that he is not, which puts him into the "employee" bucket.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Yep, I think you make a good point. I still think 3% is too low for the person on the team who everyone else depends on to actually execute the product.
  - jacoblyles 15y ago
    Well, it depends on how difficult he would be to replace. It sounds like a difficult project, so he probably has good standing to push for a bit more.