4 ms·

>while the employees ... come off as being motivated purely by greed, spite, and short-term considerations. man, how joining an early stage startup many years

>while the employees ... come off as being motivated purely by greed, spite, and short-term considerations. man, how joining an early stage startup many years ago at the comparably lower salary, yet with comparably large option grant makes the person to come off as "being motivated by short-term considerations"?

grandalf 15y ago
Well, if the stock is needed now by Pincus to grow the company and he's hamstrung without it, then by not agreeing to a reasonable deal the employees are threatening the future of the company and their own future wealth just out of greed. What difference does being worth $200M on paper vs $100M on paper make? It only matters to someone who isn't thinking rationally about Pincus's options and the fundraising realities of the company. Being an early employee should not entitle a person to sabotage the company's future just b/c the founder made a mistake, whether that mistake was being too generous with option grants, forgetting to change a password, revealing a secret about one's personal life, etc. Sabotage is sabotage. Creating the hubbub is essentially an attempt to blackmail Pincus and the company's current investors into complying.
- eaurouge 15y ago
  If, by your reasoning, the company is paramount, then all parties should pitch in. Founders, investors, all employees. Why should these employees be responsible for saving the company from a mess caused by the executive team and investors?
- drumdance 15y ago
  Pincus is the probably the largest shareholder and is already independently wealthy. Maybe he should give some shares back.
- orangecat 15y ago
  What difference does being worth $200M on paper vs $100M on paper make? Continuing with that "logic", Pincus is apparently worth $2 billion. So if he chips in $1.9 billion of his own assets, maybe he'd have a leg to stand on. Creating the hubbub is essentially an attempt to blackmail Pincus and the company's current investors into complying. Blackmailing the company into...abiding by the terms they originally agreed to. Appalling.
  - grandalf 15y ago
    Did the company originally agree to keep those employees around through the vesting period? If any of them were critical to the company's success then nobody would be asking them to give up anything.
    - kamaal 15y ago
      So essentially what you are saying is, that someone can hire with a promise and a contract that they will paid less now, but be compensate through stock later. Under the premise that the employee will have to do all the work required for the company's success, give his full. The company expects the employee, to take the risk of loosing money through lesser monthly salary and loosing out money on stocks(which happens if the company doesn't do well), but yet not sacrifice even a atom worth work in effort. And yet when the company is successful, now the company feels it has rights to dump the employee and deny all the compensation for work, risk and lesser monthly pay. And all this for what? Because you suddenly realize that somebody whom you had promised to pay is getting big money. And you feel out of your own self elitist attitude that he doesn't deserve it, then you decide to dump him so that you can pocket money instead. Seems like classic tissue example to me. People being used and thrown. Promised, money so that you can work hard to make the company successful. And then when the company is done squeezing the last drop of juice out of you making money. Dumping you, as they no longer need you.
- lanstein 15y ago
  What in the fuck are you talking about?
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  This sounds like it would be equivalent to being awarded a pay rise at work at the start of the year and then the following year having your employer ask you to refund the extra pay that you received over the last year due to the rise. Would that also be classed as sabotaging the company to refuse?
- nl 15y ago
  I understand your logic, but you are missing the point. No one is claiming that this isn't good for the company - they are claiming it is unethical (at least) and bad for the employees. Stock options are an important part of the compensation package at start-up companies. If Pincus said to a group of employees: "Ok, we've paid a salary but now we have decided we want that money back. Give it to us or we will fire you" would your argument be the same? If not, what is the difference? The extra money would be good for the company, too, right?
- danssig 15y ago
  If this is truly the case then Pincus is so incompetent as to be dangerous. The market has correctly identified it for culling and it should die. Honestly, with the bizarre position you've taken over this issue one would have to imagine you are one of the people who stands to gain from this. You're lamenting the failing of a company that is on par with ambulance chasers and patents trolls? You're claiming the employees are greedy when a billionaire tries to extort them for the shares he promised them?

grandalf 15y ago

Well, if the stock is needed now by Pincus to grow the company and he's hamstrung without it, then by not agreeing to a reasonable deal the employees are threatening the future of the company and their own future wealth just out of greed. What difference does being worth $200M on paper vs $100M on paper make? It only matters to someone who isn't thinking rationally about Pincus's options and the fundraising realities of the company. Being an early employee should not entitle a person to sabotage the company's future just b/c the founder made a mistake, whether that mistake was being too generous with option grants, forgetting to change a password, revealing a secret about one's personal life, etc. Sabotage is sabotage. Creating the hubbub is essentially an attempt to blackmail Pincus and the company's current investors into complying.

eaurouge 15y ago
If, by your reasoning, the company is paramount, then all parties should pitch in. Founders, investors, all employees. Why should these employees be responsible for saving the company from a mess caused by the executive team and investors?
drumdance 15y ago
Pincus is the probably the largest shareholder and is already independently wealthy. Maybe he should give some shares back.
orangecat 15y ago
What difference does being worth $200M on paper vs $100M on paper make? Continuing with that "logic", Pincus is apparently worth $2 billion. So if he chips in $1.9 billion of his own assets, maybe he'd have a leg to stand on. Creating the hubbub is essentially an attempt to blackmail Pincus and the company's current investors into complying. Blackmailing the company into...abiding by the terms they originally agreed to. Appalling.
- grandalf 15y ago
  Did the company originally agree to keep those employees around through the vesting period? If any of them were critical to the company's success then nobody would be asking them to give up anything.
  - kamaal 15y ago
    So essentially what you are saying is, that someone can hire with a promise and a contract that they will paid less now, but be compensate through stock later. Under the premise that the employee will have to do all the work required for the company's success, give his full. The company expects the employee, to take the risk of loosing money through lesser monthly salary and loosing out money on stocks(which happens if the company doesn't do well), but yet not sacrifice even a atom worth work in effort. And yet when the company is successful, now the company feels it has rights to dump the employee and deny all the compensation for work, risk and lesser monthly pay. And all this for what? Because you suddenly realize that somebody whom you had promised to pay is getting big money. And you feel out of your own self elitist attitude that he doesn't deserve it, then you decide to dump him so that you can pocket money instead. Seems like classic tissue example to me. People being used and thrown. Promised, money so that you can work hard to make the company successful. And then when the company is done squeezing the last drop of juice out of you making money. Dumping you, as they no longer need you.
lanstein 15y ago
What in the fuck are you talking about?
jiggy2011 15y ago
This sounds like it would be equivalent to being awarded a pay rise at work at the start of the year and then the following year having your employer ask you to refund the extra pay that you received over the last year due to the rise. Would that also be classed as sabotaging the company to refuse?
nl 15y ago
I understand your logic, but you are missing the point. No one is claiming that this isn't good for the company - they are claiming it is unethical (at least) and bad for the employees. Stock options are an important part of the compensation package at start-up companies. If Pincus said to a group of employees: "Ok, we've paid a salary but now we have decided we want that money back. Give it to us or we will fire you" would your argument be the same? If not, what is the difference? The extra money would be good for the company, too, right?
danssig 15y ago
If this is truly the case then Pincus is so incompetent as to be dangerous. The market has correctly identified it for culling and it should die. Honestly, with the bizarre position you've taken over this issue one would have to imagine you are one of the people who stands to gain from this. You're lamenting the failing of a company that is on par with ambulance chasers and patents trolls? You're claiming the employees are greedy when a billionaire tries to extort them for the shares he promised them?