3 ms·

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

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.

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.