3 ms·

I was first eng at 2 YC companies so can share my experience: Benefits: - Learn on the job - Learn to start companies/test ideas Drawbacks: - Company pivot

I was first eng at 2 YC companies so can share my experience: Benefits: - Learn on the job - Learn to start companies/test ideas Drawbacks: - Company pivots or moves locations? Can lose all equity if < year 1 even if you stayed up late often building first MVP - All of your points The payoff could be the startup, but more likely it's the experience and skills for down the line. Are you inexperienced? Then it's a great option if you want to start a startup in the future. For me I ended up getting a full time, much much better job by essentially going through the agile sprint wringer at multiple startups. It would be a much harder sell now to me, not that I'm not open to it, I just have more of a radar for better startups now. Caveat if you don't have the skills required to start the company, then there's no opportunity cost and the opportunity cost exists somewhere else if you have other skills. I did notice how several founders were very good at fundraising, instead of writing code -- and it was equally important.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Thanks, your response was very helpful and appreciated. > Caveat if you don't have the skills required to start the company, then there's no opportunity cost and the opportunity cost exists somewhere else if you have other skills. I did notice how several founders were very good at fundraising, instead of writing code -- and it was equally important. Totally agree, but that's why I brought up the example of the AirBnB cofounder. I'm assuming among the three of them that probably Brian Chesky and/or Joe Gebbia were the fundraisers and Nathan was the engineering mind (don't know if that's true). I just don't understand why engineering folks would "sell themselves short" if the contribution is as equally important as fund raising, business acumen, etc.
- davidajackson 4y ago
  My guess would be it's a combination of: 1. Many good eng's might not have the skills to fundraise/run the business side, and with them more often having friends that are also eng's maybe there's less likely to be a match to have a business counterpart. That coupled with missing domain knowledge means that some eng's jump to take those jobs. However I have heard from a successful founder that the early engineers that are good are very hard to attract. 2. Loss aversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion; people more often seek to avoid downside rather than pursue upside.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Thanks, your response was very helpful and appreciated. > Caveat if you don't have the skills required to start the company, then there's no opportunity cost and the opportunity cost exists somewhere else if you have other skills. I did notice how several founders were very good at fundraising, instead of writing code -- and it was equally important. Totally agree, but that's why I brought up the example of the AirBnB cofounder. I'm assuming among the three of them that probably Brian Chesky and/or Joe Gebbia were the fundraisers and Nathan was the engineering mind (don't know if that's true). I just don't understand why engineering folks would "sell themselves short" if the contribution is as equally important as fund raising, business acumen, etc.

davidajackson 4y ago
My guess would be it's a combination of: 1. Many good eng's might not have the skills to fundraise/run the business side, and with them more often having friends that are also eng's maybe there's less likely to be a match to have a business counterpart. That coupled with missing domain knowledge means that some eng's jump to take those jobs. However I have heard from a successful founder that the early engineers that are good are very hard to attract. 2. Loss aversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion; people more often seek to avoid downside rather than pursue upside.