I'm not sure I agree with earbitscom (commented a few times here), but I upvoted him because I think he's boiled it down to the important point. But for the pe

I'm not sure I agree with earbitscom (commented a few times here), but I upvoted him because I think he's boiled it down to the important point. But for the people downvoting his "options are future compensation" argument, here's an interesting thought exercise: Say you joined a young/really hot startup that was heading straight up. You negotiate a good options package, but it's lean-- they aren't super eager to part with these (obviously valuable) shares. Then, the world explodes. The company gets sued, the market crashes, the users revolt. But the company manages to emerge from the carnage beaten-but-alive. It's no longer a sure thing. In fact, it looks risky as hell. But you believe in the vision and the management, so you want to stick it out. You're 1.5 years in. New hires are getting packages that reflect the (newfound) risk in the stock. Your stock package looks small in comparison. Given the new information, would it be wrong to negotiate for more stock?