17 ms·

Notch gives his $3,000,000 Minecraft dividend to his employees

694 points by citricsquid 15y ago

therealarmen 15y ago
For the lazy, that works out to $120,000 per employee if split equally. Anyone know what kind of taxes this is subject to?
- citricsquid 15y ago
  Sweden has high taxes, depends on how he does it. If the money is first given to him and then he redistributes it then he'll most likely lose $1.5m on tax (50%). Otherwise, no idea.
  - ique 15y ago
    $120k is high enough to pay full taxes on anyway so no matter how they distribute it, they will very likely loose half to taxes.
    - Drbble 15y ago
      This is one reason why, at US tax rates, it would be more efficient to split the bonus over 2 or more years. Also, that delayed vesting could help with retention.
      - rprasad 15y ago
        There is no tax advantage in the U.S. to splitting a dividend into two years. Dividends are taxed at a flat rate, currently 15%.
  - Joakal 15y ago
    Is there a different tax rate if the employees received the equivalent amount in shares and then sold it?
    - AndyJPartridge 15y ago
      That has many complications. If he gave the amount in shares, they have the shares and could sit on them. This may have problems with shareholders voting rights and such like. (Which is why you should always try to have 50% of a companies shares in the ideal world.) If they wanted to sell them they need to find a buyer, and if one person bought many of the shares they may end up in a controlling position of the company.
  - AndyJPartridge 15y ago
    I think that like share dividends in the UK, it attracts a lower tax rate. I think Sweden is 30%? However, "gifting" monies to people is a strange area, with various odd rules. You can only give away a certain amount of money a year in the UK, and that depends on who it is you are giving to or even the circumstance. (EG, you can gift £5,000 as a wedding gift.)
    - petercooper 15y ago
      If I had to guess, I imagine he refused a dividend and instead had the company issue the equivalent sum in bonuses to the employees. Tax wise it'd make no sense for him to take a dividend and then create havoc by gifting it. (At least, under UK style tax law.)
      - gebe 15y ago
        I don't know how it would work out in this particular case (there might be other juridical complications) but Sweden has no taxes (any longer) on gifts.
        mseebach 15y ago
        You can't give a gift to employees. Otherwise everybody would get part of their salary as a gift.
        obtu 15y ago
        But once the dividend tax is paid to make the money Notch's, and not Mojang's, the money no longer comes from the employer, does it? </not-an-accountant>
      - Chrono 15y ago
        Gifts are no longer taxes in Sweden but it is likely that the tax authority will regard it as income (Or bonus) and they will pay 50-56% taxes on the lot. Quite tricky but I assume Mojang has good accountants that will work it out!
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
DarkMeld 15y ago
Stay humble my friend.
jeremyarussell 15y ago
Now if only more American bosses would take the money they earned with help from their employees and redistribute it to those employees, then maybe the economy (in America) wouldn't be as crazy as it is.
- nazgulnarsil 15y ago
  Yes, what we need is more non quantifiable moralizing. Surely the minutia of the problem will respond to our passion.
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    I don't see anything wrong with encouraging those with power and money to focus on benefiting those beneath them in the hierarchy, rather than solely themselves. You can dismiss it as "non quantifiable moralizing" while I'll just call it desirable ethics. Incidentally, what's with the sarcasm?
    - nazgulnarsil 15y ago
      I would prefer no philanthropy to sub-optimal philanthropy.
- odiroot 15y ago
  Isn't this something like investments bank do? Not even trying to troll, just asking.
  - jfoutz 15y ago
    There are two kinds of jobs. Pay based on time, and pay based on transaction. Sales, mergers and acquisitions, medical malpractice lawyers, those kinds of jobs tend to be paid in proportion to the size of the transaction.
  - jarek 15y ago
    Yes, that's one of the bigger draws - that your opportunities and compensation are fairly closely correlated with your achievements. There's still wonkery like facetime and being one of the guys, but compared to many other areas it's pretty good. How the money is earned is a separate issue.
tonfa 15y ago
Who are the other shareholders of Mojang?
- citricsquid 15y ago
  As far as I know it is Carl Manneh (serving as CEO) Jahkob Porser (developing Scrolls) + Notch. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/09/16/mojang-founders-notch-and-jakob-on-minecraft-scrolls-and-the-business-of-indie-games/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/09/16/mojang-foun... (paragraph #3)
lincolnq 15y ago
I'm extremely interested to see how this plays out. Giving large cash bonuses seems like it could wreck morale just as easily as it could boost it. And now when they're hiring in the future, they have to wonder whether the candidate is more motivated by the money or the love. And will the employees expect a similar bonus next year? I'm not saying he shouldn't've done it. I am, however, extremely curious. This is the sort of thing that I have wondered why more companies don't do.
- jlarocco 15y ago
  When people are applying for a job you can be 99% sure they're motivated by the money. I love developing software, and I even spend some of my free time doing it. But if I didn't need the money, I'd spend most of my days skiing.
  - dustingetz 15y ago
    if i didn't need the money, i'd still be building things.
    - nknight 15y ago
      Building things for someone else according to their desires?
      - jfoutz 15y ago
        Not necessarily. It's easy to imagine mojang as a producer for indy game developers. Make the game you want, we'll support you with a paycheck, art, music, marketing, all the stuff around the game. In exchange, you get something like royalties for big games. Honestly i'm surprised you don't recognize this model from movies and music and books and every other kind of media ever. It's possible to have endless debates about compromising artistic vision, but the fundamental idea is the same. We'll support you so you can create the art you love, in exchange we're keeping some of the profits.
        15y ago
maxharris 15y ago
Assuming that the money is deserved by the employees, this is a very shrewd, selfish^ move on his part. Giving people their just deserts is in everyone's interest, and Notch's long-term reward will be a robust, growing business. ^I use the term to mean what it should mean - "what's good for Notch, long term" - and disavow any connotation about harming others. It's not truly selfish to hurt others.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  >It's not truly selfish to hurt others. A minor quibble, but I'd say that depends entirely on the action and the circumstances surrounding it. "Pure" selfishness is simply the maximizing of one's own gain without regard for others. It does not imply helping or hurting, although it allows for both. To draw from a geeky example, Shane shooting Otis in the leg so the zombies would attack the latter, not the former, on the Walking Dead was selfish. So, too, would a Google donation to the EFF be selfish. One action hurts others, the other helps, but both help the actor.
  - wisty 15y ago
    It's partly a definition debate, but I think it's a mistake to try to label selfishness as everyone but selflessness. If something is win-win, it's not selfish. Attempting to label mutually beneficial actions "selfish" is Ayn-Rand era propaganda. If an action is good for you, and bad for others, it's selfish. If an action is good for others and bad for you, it's selfless (though it might turn out to be a good thing for you - that's karma). If good for everyone (including you), or something that benefits you and doen't really effect anyone else, it's neither selfish nor selfless, it's just a smart move. Ultimately, selfishness describes motivations, not actions. If you think Google's action was selfishly motivated (and they had no concern for the positive or negative externalities of their action) then it's fair to call their action selfish. But unless you're a mind reader, it's hard to make that call.
    - maxharris 15y ago
      But aren't we told by nearly everyone that it's better, morally, to be selfless? You're saying that it's better not to be selfless, but to make "smart moves"? From what I've read, it doesn't appear that you think that selflessness is a good thing. Is this correct?
malkia 15y ago
Top-Notch!
justjimmy 15y ago
It'd be more awesome and effective (in terms of morale and team) to pay those in shares. Nothing boost productivity and care like owning a bit of a company. Even if it's just a tiny bit. Now that would be interesting to see.
- tatsuke95 15y ago
  They're free to spend their loot on whatever they want, including shares.
  - Arelius 15y ago
    That isn't to say that shares in mojang are open to purchase, actually, I'd bet that they arent in fact.
  - justjimmy 15y ago
    They're free to sell the shares too. And no, you can't 'buy' Mojang shares atm.
- nandemo 15y ago
  Speak for yourself. Other things being equal, I'd much rather get cash than shares in the company I work for. If the company goes bust, then I'm out of a job and my shares are worth nothing. If I want to invest in equity, then I will buy stocks in other companies and have a more diversified portfolio. Of course, the situation would be different if I were a co-founder or a key employee with significant influence on the company's direction.
  - rplnt 15y ago
    With company of less than a few dozens employees everyone is a key employee and what he does affects the company. Thus I think shares really boost working morale and interest in company's success. Money does too. But I think that higher stable income more than a one-time big fat bonus.
  - justjimmy 15y ago
    The company is question is Mojang and being a gamer myself, I know they have a very dedicated following and very open compared to other traditional companies. Short of a massive screw up, I'd doubt they'd go 'bust' easily. If you had shares in the company, wouldn't you care more and push even harder? That's the point I'm getting across.
staunch 15y ago
Didn't he pretty much develop Minecraft single-handedly? If so, I don't think it's necessarily "right" to share the profits with employees who joined after the work was done. It's his money of course, he's free to do what he wants and generosity is always nice to see. To my mind though, it would have made just as much sense to give it to charity or anyone else. I'd be much more interested to hear that he's giving meaningful equity to new employees. That way they could actually make life-altering money if they help create another big hit like Minecraft. I doubt his employees will appreciate getting another $3 million split across dozens of employees if they help create a new $100M game.
- citricsquid 15y ago
  He developed it alone originally yes, but he retired in November 2011 and since late 2010 it's been developed (in part) by Jens Bergensten (http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Jeb http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Jeb) Edit: also Mojang has revenue from the pocket edition of the game (for iOS and Android) that Notch has no involvement in, so it's beyond him being the only bread winner for the company.
  - GuiA 15y ago
    He didn't retire. He handed the lead of the Minecraft project to Jens, but he is still very much working at Mojang.
    - citricsquid 15y ago
      Retired from Minecraft and any revenue producing projects for Mojang, as far as I know.
      - zacharycohn 15y ago
        I thought he transitioned to working entirely on Scrolls.
        15y ago
bond 15y ago
Amazing how the sales keep going on... Last 24H 8845sales=176500€... http://www.minecraft.net/stats http://www.minecraft.net/stats
- muhfuhkuh 15y ago
  There are alot of people with computers on this planet. It's a testament to not only being a great game/experience out of the box, but also the constant updates and the lack of costly add-on content plaguing other games.
  - Strom 15y ago
    I think an important point is also that Minecraft can run on very low spec hardware, no need for fancy GPUs.
- rplnt 15y ago
  Quite a big update with a lot of changes was released yesterday so that probably bumped the sales a bit.
GoodIntentions 15y ago
I don't play minecraft. I'm not a fan. I wouldn't know Notch if I tripped on him. I gotta say hats off to the man. Doing something good for others at your own ( great ) expense when not compelled to do so is unusual. Most people would have spent it on themselves somehow. wtg man.
- kiba 15y ago
  If you're perfectly happy with your lifestyle, three million bucks is more than enough for you.
  - moe 15y ago
    Let's also not forget notch likely already has another 3MM (and then some) in his bank account. That doesn't make his move any less glamorous, though. You don't often hear about people just giving away that kind of money - whether they're multi-millionaires or not...
- iacvlvs 15y ago
  iirc, Steve Wozniak did something similar: when Apple went public without giving anything to the early employees, Woz basically gave/sold (cheaply) them stock from his own holdings.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Before or after they went public? If before, that strikes me as the kind of thing the SEC would frown upon.
zotz 15y ago
That's leadership. He just solidified a good team into a better one.
- yoklov 15y ago
  You can't really be sure about that, after all, his employees could promptly retire now that they're rich. (Though, this seems very unlikely)
  - eurleif 15y ago
    $125,000 is a decent bit of cash, but it's not enough to retire on, especially after taxes.
    - baq 15y ago
      that depends completely on where do you live. here in eastern europe it'd be _almost_ enough if you had nothing to start with and was smart about handling it. in the us, that's 3 years of entry-level salary in software development...
    - kragen 15y ago
      In Argentina you could buy a house near the capital for about half of that, and the rest would pay frugal-ish expenses for several years. Not enough to retire on, but plenty of runway for the next project.
sukuriant 15y ago
Forgive me, but... why should we care? It's his money, he can do whatever he wants with it. It's not humble and awe-inspiring. He announced it to the world on twitter. I mean, it's nice of him, or whatever, but.. I don't care? Why should anyone care about this? I could write a long tyrade about how this could be useful if more companies did this, because yes, the employees would have an invested interest in this company; and la la la; but really, this is just Notch tooting his own horn about giving his money away. Congratulations. Yes, what you've done with Minecraft is absolutely amazing, and I love the game, but... very nice of you. Moving on. awaits the downvotes [edit: in seriousness, could someone tell me why the public, even the programming public, should care that Notch gave away his dividends? We're not told why he did it. He's not encouraging others to follow his example, he just did it and told everyone.]
- scotty79 15y ago
  Because it's unusual and smart brains crave unusual information?
  - sukuriant 15y ago
    I mean more "why should anyone care?" It's really not that unusual, and honestly tastes more like gossip, to me :/ I'm not saying that it shouldn't be on HackerNews. If someone posted it and it's receiving upvotes, clearly it's worth being on HN. I just don't understand why it matters at all
    - hessenwolf 15y ago
      I'll admit to just enjoying the gossip from fellow techies and entrepreneurs. Note that it was used as another excuse to discuss tax rates, lifestyle choices, and healthcare in the comments - things we are all interested in in the choice of where to live and where to work.
- antoko 15y ago
  Fine I'll bite, it is INTERESTING it is different it sparks debate and it gives life to a conversation about bonuses and compensation in our industry. Lots of people here are also founders (or plan to be) so form that perspective it is interesting to contemplate the effects of such a move on early employees, it isn't so different from talking about vesting for early employees in that regard, something which is also a common topic here. I'm not sure why you would choose to make this a personal thing about notch, HN (for me at least when it is at its "best") is a place to come for NEW and INTERESTING perspectives, this absolutely falls into that category - for a number of reasons. Your response seems to be "wow look at notch trying to draw attention to himself" the impression I have from the rest of the comments here isn't "wow look how generous notch is; he's so awesome" it seems to be more like "wow this is cool/different/unexpected I wonder how this will play out".
Chrono 15y ago
Dividend is generally taxed at 30% in Sweden so a fair bit of that will be paid in taxes. Depending on how Notch decides to pay out the money to the employees they may have to pay even more. If it is paid out evenly and as wages it will be about 66k SEK/month per employee, that puts them well into the top tax bracket. Assuming the tax authority counts it as normal income they will be force to pat ~56% income tax a fair bit of social securities and employer tax. Assuming this they might get about (as a guesstimate) 20-25k SEK/m or 240-300k SEK total, after taxes. Not shabby at all, that is close to what an average worker in Sweden earns per year. And that is bonus alone. None the less; Cheers Notch for thinking about your employees! : ) Edit: Gifts are no longer taxed in Sweden, luckily! but it is likely that the tax authority will regard it as income or bonus rather than a gift.
- driverdan 15y ago
  56% income tax? That. is. insane.
  - Volpe 15y ago
    Sure if you believe in inequality/social injustice... I believe most first-world economies have some form of wealth redistribution[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth
    - marvin 15y ago
      I know socialist sentiments aren't very popular on Hacker News, but some form of wealth redistribution is going to be _necessary_ in a couple of years if the richest continue getting richer (which they will, due to technological advancement) and automation becomes so efficient that most simple jobs disappear. A considerable part of the population will simply be unable to do meaningful work in the private sector. The Luddite argument will eventually be dead, at least for certain groups in society. So the choice is letting them starve, or subsidize them somehow. How this "wealth redistribution" should happen is an entirely different question, but a flat tax rate including on capital (very hard to implement in practice) or simply flat taxation of everyone above a certain, very high net worth are possibilities. Note that certain countries already have de facto subsidy systems for low-income/unemployable groups already, e.g. Norway.
jebblue 15y ago
That guy just totally rocks. I wish I could work with him.
lyime 15y ago
Huge respect. I hope this will encourage more founders to follow.
tdicola 15y ago
I have so much respect for Notch and Minecraft. It's the dream that pretty much everyone who wanted to build games has had--turning your game into a massive success both financially and artistically. All without the help of publishers or really the entire professional game industry. Amazing.
keithvan 15y ago
I think actions speak louder than words. Despite Notch getting a some flack among the community for being out-of-touch with Minecraft and some of it also going to his staff, I think this shows that Notch cares about his studio, his work, and staff more than anything else. And certainly unprecedented in among gaming studios and companies.
vic_nyc 15y ago
I applaud these guys. It's more about the money per se - it's about having a share of company profits. This, I find, is what a lot of companies get wrong. We go by the same old mentality that an "employee" should simply be compensated with a fixed amount. But why? People who work on the product should have a significant share of the profits as well. Allegedly a regular employee is "taking less risk" by having a fixed salary as opposed to the "risk takers" at the top - but in this day and age where there is no more guaranteed long-term job stability, that is not true anymore. And the continuing success of the company's products depends directly on the good work of its employees.
Tycho 15y ago
Notice how at the bottom of the article it says this move is very surprising 'in this day in age.' Is that just a cliche or was it that people really were more generous in these situations in years gone by? I mean bankers are giving up their bonuses left right and centre these days ;)
- Willwhatley 15y ago
  An alternative reading: 'in this day and age' might refer to some future of extravagant wealth only surpassed by the generosity and grace with which the inhabitants thereof adorn themselves.
erikb 15y ago
He already got millions of $$ in his pocket. From his point of view $3M is not that much, I think. Nice move, but nothing impressive.
feralchimp 15y ago
Giving $3M to employees is cool. But maybe next time, let them tweet it.
bicknergseng 15y ago
I might be being naive since he seems to be rather bravado about splitting the money with everyone, but I like to think Notch is doing the absolute best thing for Mojang and probably for himself in the end. I personally would love to work at a company like Mojang for a boss like Notch who disperses the hard work of the company with the company. It seems to me that executives like Gates, Page, Brin, or Jobs who take $1 salaries (discounting their travel subsidies and Jobs's Gulfstream) are better for their companies in a number of ways than someone taking a lavish salary. I'm not saying the latter is wrong, but it seems like the "selfless" executive at the very least demonstrates the need for the company to do well--a real connection between vision, company, and leadership. I hope good things come for both Notch and Mojang as a result of his sharing the wealth, their focus on satisfying their customers, and their general attitudes of honesty and openness.

694 points by citricsquid 15y ago

For the lazy, that works out to $120,000 per employee if split equally. Anyone know what kind of taxes this is subject to?

citricsquid 15y ago
Sweden has high taxes, depends on how he does it. If the money is first given to him and then he redistributes it then he'll most likely lose $1.5m on tax (50%). Otherwise, no idea.
- ique 15y ago
  $120k is high enough to pay full taxes on anyway so no matter how they distribute it, they will very likely loose half to taxes.
  - Drbble 15y ago
    This is one reason why, at US tax rates, it would be more efficient to split the bonus over 2 or more years. Also, that delayed vesting could help with retention.
    - rprasad 15y ago
      There is no tax advantage in the U.S. to splitting a dividend into two years. Dividends are taxed at a flat rate, currently 15%.
- Joakal 15y ago
  Is there a different tax rate if the employees received the equivalent amount in shares and then sold it?
  - AndyJPartridge 15y ago
    That has many complications. If he gave the amount in shares, they have the shares and could sit on them. This may have problems with shareholders voting rights and such like. (Which is why you should always try to have 50% of a companies shares in the ideal world.) If they wanted to sell them they need to find a buyer, and if one person bought many of the shares they may end up in a controlling position of the company.
- AndyJPartridge 15y ago
  I think that like share dividends in the UK, it attracts a lower tax rate. I think Sweden is 30%? However, "gifting" monies to people is a strange area, with various odd rules. You can only give away a certain amount of money a year in the UK, and that depends on who it is you are giving to or even the circumstance. (EG, you can gift £5,000 as a wedding gift.)
  - petercooper 15y ago
    If I had to guess, I imagine he refused a dividend and instead had the company issue the equivalent sum in bonuses to the employees. Tax wise it'd make no sense for him to take a dividend and then create havoc by gifting it. (At least, under UK style tax law.)
    - gebe 15y ago
      I don't know how it would work out in this particular case (there might be other juridical complications) but Sweden has no taxes (any longer) on gifts.
      - mseebach 15y ago
        You can't give a gift to employees. Otherwise everybody would get part of their salary as a gift.
        obtu 15y ago
        But once the dividend tax is paid to make the money Notch's, and not Mojang's, the money no longer comes from the employer, does it? </not-an-accountant>
    - Chrono 15y ago
      Gifts are no longer taxes in Sweden but it is likely that the tax authority will regard it as income (Or bonus) and they will pay 50-56% taxes on the lot. Quite tricky but I assume Mojang has good accountants that will work it out!
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

DarkMeld 15y ago

Stay humble my friend.

jeremyarussell 15y ago

Now if only more American bosses would take the money they earned with help from their employees and redistribute it to those employees, then maybe the economy (in America) wouldn't be as crazy as it is.

nazgulnarsil 15y ago
Yes, what we need is more non quantifiable moralizing. Surely the minutia of the problem will respond to our passion.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  I don't see anything wrong with encouraging those with power and money to focus on benefiting those beneath them in the hierarchy, rather than solely themselves. You can dismiss it as "non quantifiable moralizing" while I'll just call it desirable ethics. Incidentally, what's with the sarcasm?
  - nazgulnarsil 15y ago
    I would prefer no philanthropy to sub-optimal philanthropy.
odiroot 15y ago
Isn't this something like investments bank do? Not even trying to troll, just asking.
- jfoutz 15y ago
  There are two kinds of jobs. Pay based on time, and pay based on transaction. Sales, mergers and acquisitions, medical malpractice lawyers, those kinds of jobs tend to be paid in proportion to the size of the transaction.
- jarek 15y ago
  Yes, that's one of the bigger draws - that your opportunities and compensation are fairly closely correlated with your achievements. There's still wonkery like facetime and being one of the guys, but compared to many other areas it's pretty good. How the money is earned is a separate issue.

tonfa 15y ago

Who are the other shareholders of Mojang?

citricsquid 15y ago
As far as I know it is Carl Manneh (serving as CEO) Jahkob Porser (developing Scrolls) + Notch. Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/09/16/mojang-founders-notch-and-jakob-on-minecraft-scrolls-and-the-business-of-indie-games/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/09/16/mojang-foun... (paragraph #3)

lincolnq 15y ago

I'm extremely interested to see how this plays out. Giving large cash bonuses seems like it could wreck morale just as easily as it could boost it. And now when they're hiring in the future, they have to wonder whether the candidate is more motivated by the money or the love. And will the employees expect a similar bonus next year? I'm not saying he shouldn't've done it. I am, however, extremely curious. This is the sort of thing that I have wondered why more companies don't do.

jlarocco 15y ago
When people are applying for a job you can be 99% sure they're motivated by the money. I love developing software, and I even spend some of my free time doing it. But if I didn't need the money, I'd spend most of my days skiing.
- dustingetz 15y ago
  if i didn't need the money, i'd still be building things.
  - nknight 15y ago
    Building things for someone else according to their desires?
    - jfoutz 15y ago
      Not necessarily. It's easy to imagine mojang as a producer for indy game developers. Make the game you want, we'll support you with a paycheck, art, music, marketing, all the stuff around the game. In exchange, you get something like royalties for big games. Honestly i'm surprised you don't recognize this model from movies and music and books and every other kind of media ever. It's possible to have endless debates about compromising artistic vision, but the fundamental idea is the same. We'll support you so you can create the art you love, in exchange we're keeping some of the profits.
      - 15y ago

maxharris 15y ago

Assuming that the money is deserved by the employees, this is a very shrewd, selfish^ move on his part. Giving people their just deserts is in everyone's interest, and Notch's long-term reward will be a robust, growing business. ^I use the term to mean what it should mean - "what's good for Notch, long term" - and disavow any connotation about harming others. It's not truly selfish to hurt others.

redthrowaway 15y ago
>It's not truly selfish to hurt others. A minor quibble, but I'd say that depends entirely on the action and the circumstances surrounding it. "Pure" selfishness is simply the maximizing of one's own gain without regard for others. It does not imply helping or hurting, although it allows for both. To draw from a geeky example, Shane shooting Otis in the leg so the zombies would attack the latter, not the former, on the Walking Dead was selfish. So, too, would a Google donation to the EFF be selfish. One action hurts others, the other helps, but both help the actor.
- wisty 15y ago
  It's partly a definition debate, but I think it's a mistake to try to label selfishness as everyone but selflessness. If something is win-win, it's not selfish. Attempting to label mutually beneficial actions "selfish" is Ayn-Rand era propaganda. If an action is good for you, and bad for others, it's selfish. If an action is good for others and bad for you, it's selfless (though it might turn out to be a good thing for you - that's karma). If good for everyone (including you), or something that benefits you and doen't really effect anyone else, it's neither selfish nor selfless, it's just a smart move. Ultimately, selfishness describes motivations, not actions. If you think Google's action was selfishly motivated (and they had no concern for the positive or negative externalities of their action) then it's fair to call their action selfish. But unless you're a mind reader, it's hard to make that call.
  - maxharris 15y ago
    But aren't we told by nearly everyone that it's better, morally, to be selfless? You're saying that it's better not to be selfless, but to make "smart moves"? From what I've read, it doesn't appear that you think that selflessness is a good thing. Is this correct?

malkia 15y ago

Top-Notch!

justjimmy 15y ago

It'd be more awesome and effective (in terms of morale and team) to pay those in shares. Nothing boost productivity and care like owning a bit of a company. Even if it's just a tiny bit. Now that would be interesting to see.

tatsuke95 15y ago
They're free to spend their loot on whatever they want, including shares.
- Arelius 15y ago
  That isn't to say that shares in mojang are open to purchase, actually, I'd bet that they arent in fact.
- justjimmy 15y ago
  They're free to sell the shares too. And no, you can't 'buy' Mojang shares atm.
nandemo 15y ago
Speak for yourself. Other things being equal, I'd much rather get cash than shares in the company I work for. If the company goes bust, then I'm out of a job and my shares are worth nothing. If I want to invest in equity, then I will buy stocks in other companies and have a more diversified portfolio. Of course, the situation would be different if I were a co-founder or a key employee with significant influence on the company's direction.
- rplnt 15y ago
  With company of less than a few dozens employees everyone is a key employee and what he does affects the company. Thus I think shares really boost working morale and interest in company's success. Money does too. But I think that higher stable income more than a one-time big fat bonus.
- justjimmy 15y ago
  The company is question is Mojang and being a gamer myself, I know they have a very dedicated following and very open compared to other traditional companies. Short of a massive screw up, I'd doubt they'd go 'bust' easily. If you had shares in the company, wouldn't you care more and push even harder? That's the point I'm getting across.

staunch 15y ago

Didn't he pretty much develop Minecraft single-handedly? If so, I don't think it's necessarily "right" to share the profits with employees who joined after the work was done. It's his money of course, he's free to do what he wants and generosity is always nice to see. To my mind though, it would have made just as much sense to give it to charity or anyone else. I'd be much more interested to hear that he's giving meaningful equity to new employees. That way they could actually make life-altering money if they help create another big hit like Minecraft. I doubt his employees will appreciate getting another $3 million split across dozens of employees if they help create a new $100M game.

citricsquid 15y ago
He developed it alone originally yes, but he retired in November 2011 and since late 2010 it's been developed (in part) by Jens Bergensten (http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Jeb http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Jeb) Edit: also Mojang has revenue from the pocket edition of the game (for iOS and Android) that Notch has no involvement in, so it's beyond him being the only bread winner for the company.
- GuiA 15y ago
  He didn't retire. He handed the lead of the Minecraft project to Jens, but he is still very much working at Mojang.
  - citricsquid 15y ago
    Retired from Minecraft and any revenue producing projects for Mojang, as far as I know.
    - zacharycohn 15y ago
      I thought he transitioned to working entirely on Scrolls.
      - 15y ago

bond 15y ago

Amazing how the sales keep going on... Last 24H 8845sales=176500€... http://www.minecraft.net/stats http://www.minecraft.net/stats

muhfuhkuh 15y ago
There are alot of people with computers on this planet. It's a testament to not only being a great game/experience out of the box, but also the constant updates and the lack of costly add-on content plaguing other games.
- Strom 15y ago
  I think an important point is also that Minecraft can run on very low spec hardware, no need for fancy GPUs.
rplnt 15y ago
Quite a big update with a lot of changes was released yesterday so that probably bumped the sales a bit.

GoodIntentions 15y ago

I don't play minecraft. I'm not a fan. I wouldn't know Notch if I tripped on him. I gotta say hats off to the man. Doing something good for others at your own ( great ) expense when not compelled to do so is unusual. Most people would have spent it on themselves somehow. wtg man.

kiba 15y ago
If you're perfectly happy with your lifestyle, three million bucks is more than enough for you.
- moe 15y ago
  Let's also not forget notch likely already has another 3MM (and then some) in his bank account. That doesn't make his move any less glamorous, though. You don't often hear about people just giving away that kind of money - whether they're multi-millionaires or not...
iacvlvs 15y ago
iirc, Steve Wozniak did something similar: when Apple went public without giving anything to the early employees, Woz basically gave/sold (cheaply) them stock from his own holdings.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Before or after they went public? If before, that strikes me as the kind of thing the SEC would frown upon.

zotz 15y ago

That's leadership. He just solidified a good team into a better one.

yoklov 15y ago
You can't really be sure about that, after all, his employees could promptly retire now that they're rich. (Though, this seems very unlikely)
- eurleif 15y ago
  $125,000 is a decent bit of cash, but it's not enough to retire on, especially after taxes.
  - baq 15y ago
    that depends completely on where do you live. here in eastern europe it'd be _almost_ enough if you had nothing to start with and was smart about handling it. in the us, that's 3 years of entry-level salary in software development...
  - kragen 15y ago
    In Argentina you could buy a house near the capital for about half of that, and the rest would pay frugal-ish expenses for several years. Not enough to retire on, but plenty of runway for the next project.

sukuriant 15y ago

Forgive me, but... why should we care? It's his money, he can do whatever he wants with it. It's not humble and awe-inspiring. He announced it to the world on twitter. I mean, it's nice of him, or whatever, but.. I don't care? Why should anyone care about this? I could write a long tyrade about how this could be useful if more companies did this, because yes, the employees would have an invested interest in this company; and la la la; but really, this is just Notch tooting his own horn about giving his money away. Congratulations. Yes, what you've done with Minecraft is absolutely amazing, and I love the game, but... very nice of you. Moving on. awaits the downvotes [edit: in seriousness, could someone tell me why the public, even the programming public, should care that Notch gave away his dividends? We're not told why he did it. He's not encouraging others to follow his example, he just did it and told everyone.]

scotty79 15y ago
Because it's unusual and smart brains crave unusual information?
- sukuriant 15y ago
  I mean more "why should anyone care?" It's really not that unusual, and honestly tastes more like gossip, to me :/ I'm not saying that it shouldn't be on HackerNews. If someone posted it and it's receiving upvotes, clearly it's worth being on HN. I just don't understand why it matters at all
  - hessenwolf 15y ago
    I'll admit to just enjoying the gossip from fellow techies and entrepreneurs. Note that it was used as another excuse to discuss tax rates, lifestyle choices, and healthcare in the comments - things we are all interested in in the choice of where to live and where to work.
antoko 15y ago
Fine I'll bite, it is INTERESTING it is different it sparks debate and it gives life to a conversation about bonuses and compensation in our industry. Lots of people here are also founders (or plan to be) so form that perspective it is interesting to contemplate the effects of such a move on early employees, it isn't so different from talking about vesting for early employees in that regard, something which is also a common topic here. I'm not sure why you would choose to make this a personal thing about notch, HN (for me at least when it is at its "best") is a place to come for NEW and INTERESTING perspectives, this absolutely falls into that category - for a number of reasons. Your response seems to be "wow look at notch trying to draw attention to himself" the impression I have from the rest of the comments here isn't "wow look how generous notch is; he's so awesome" it seems to be more like "wow this is cool/different/unexpected I wonder how this will play out".

Chrono 15y ago

Dividend is generally taxed at 30% in Sweden so a fair bit of that will be paid in taxes. Depending on how Notch decides to pay out the money to the employees they may have to pay even more. If it is paid out evenly and as wages it will be about 66k SEK/month per employee, that puts them well into the top tax bracket. Assuming the tax authority counts it as normal income they will be force to pat ~56% income tax a fair bit of social securities and employer tax. Assuming this they might get about (as a guesstimate) 20-25k SEK/m or 240-300k SEK total, after taxes. Not shabby at all, that is close to what an average worker in Sweden earns per year. And that is bonus alone. None the less; Cheers Notch for thinking about your employees! : ) Edit: Gifts are no longer taxed in Sweden, luckily! but it is likely that the tax authority will regard it as income or bonus rather than a gift.

driverdan 15y ago
56% income tax? That. is. insane.
- Volpe 15y ago
  Sure if you believe in inequality/social injustice... I believe most first-world economies have some form of wealth redistribution[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth
  - marvin 15y ago
    I know socialist sentiments aren't very popular on Hacker News, but some form of wealth redistribution is going to be _necessary_ in a couple of years if the richest continue getting richer (which they will, due to technological advancement) and automation becomes so efficient that most simple jobs disappear. A considerable part of the population will simply be unable to do meaningful work in the private sector. The Luddite argument will eventually be dead, at least for certain groups in society. So the choice is letting them starve, or subsidize them somehow. How this "wealth redistribution" should happen is an entirely different question, but a flat tax rate including on capital (very hard to implement in practice) or simply flat taxation of everyone above a certain, very high net worth are possibilities. Note that certain countries already have de facto subsidy systems for low-income/unemployable groups already, e.g. Norway.

jebblue 15y ago

That guy just totally rocks. I wish I could work with him.

lyime 15y ago

Huge respect. I hope this will encourage more founders to follow.

tdicola 15y ago

I have so much respect for Notch and Minecraft. It's the dream that pretty much everyone who wanted to build games has had--turning your game into a massive success both financially and artistically. All without the help of publishers or really the entire professional game industry. Amazing.

keithvan 15y ago

I think actions speak louder than words. Despite Notch getting a some flack among the community for being out-of-touch with Minecraft and some of it also going to his staff, I think this shows that Notch cares about his studio, his work, and staff more than anything else. And certainly unprecedented in among gaming studios and companies.

vic_nyc 15y ago

I applaud these guys. It's more about the money per se - it's about having a share of company profits. This, I find, is what a lot of companies get wrong. We go by the same old mentality that an "employee" should simply be compensated with a fixed amount. But why? People who work on the product should have a significant share of the profits as well. Allegedly a regular employee is "taking less risk" by having a fixed salary as opposed to the "risk takers" at the top - but in this day and age where there is no more guaranteed long-term job stability, that is not true anymore. And the continuing success of the company's products depends directly on the good work of its employees.

Tycho 15y ago

Notice how at the bottom of the article it says this move is very surprising 'in this day in age.' Is that just a cliche or was it that people really were more generous in these situations in years gone by? I mean bankers are giving up their bonuses left right and centre these days ;)

Willwhatley 15y ago
An alternative reading: 'in this day and age' might refer to some future of extravagant wealth only surpassed by the generosity and grace with which the inhabitants thereof adorn themselves.

erikb 15y ago

He already got millions of $$ in his pocket. From his point of view $3M is not that much, I think. Nice move, but nothing impressive.

feralchimp 15y ago

Giving $3M to employees is cool. But maybe next time, let them tweet it.

bicknergseng 15y ago

I might be being naive since he seems to be rather bravado about splitting the money with everyone, but I like to think Notch is doing the absolute best thing for Mojang and probably for himself in the end. I personally would love to work at a company like Mojang for a boss like Notch who disperses the hard work of the company with the company. It seems to me that executives like Gates, Page, Brin, or Jobs who take $1 salaries (discounting their travel subsidies and Jobs's Gulfstream) are better for their companies in a number of ways than someone taking a lavish salary. I'm not saying the latter is wrong, but it seems like the "selfless" executive at the very least demonstrates the need for the company to do well--a real connection between vision, company, and leadership. I hope good things come for both Notch and Mojang as a result of his sharing the wealth, their focus on satisfying their customers, and their general attitudes of honesty and openness.