6 ms·

I applied to Loom several years ago while they were still tiny. The CEO sent me a Loom thanking me for applying and asking me to send him back a Loom describing

I applied to Loom several years ago while they were still tiny. The CEO sent me a Loom thanking me for applying and asking me to send him back a Loom describing why I was excited to work for his company. Something about that rubbed me the wrong way at the time. I didn't reply and dipped out of the interview process.

1123581321 3y ago
I like that. Much faster than writing a cover letter or application email and shows you understand what they make. I take it you weren’t that interested in their product.
WXLCKNO 3y ago
That's fine. Your options would have only been worth Checks notes Millions of dollars.
- woeirua 3y ago
  Nope. Loom was last valued at $1.5 billion in 2021, so with this acquisition a lot of people's options undoubtedly got totally wiped out due to liquidation preferences.
  - y_gy 3y ago
    This comment misunderstands how liq pref works. Liq pref is about the amount of money invested ($175M), not about the valuation. At a $975M exit and a par-for-the-course liq pref of 1.0, it is very likely that all shareholders will have made money on the exit.
    - claytonjy 3y ago
      Shareholders who got in before that last round, that is. Employees who joined in the last few years will likely have underwater options unless Loom internally repriced already-granted options.
      - sushid 3y ago
        Why are they underwater? The "value" of their options would have been the preferred share - common share price. So it would have been a fat haircut but likely still netted them some number > common share price, no?
        drexlspivey 3y ago
        The options are worth common share price - strike price. If the strike is higher they are worth zero
        FreakLegion 3y ago
        At exit the preferred shares become common, and the common shares increase in value accordingly. I've seen even series E companies that kept their common share price to under 20% of the preferred share price. If you started on day X with a common share price of 20% of the last preferred share price, and the company was acquired on day X + 1 at a discount, say 60% of the last preferred share price after factoring in liquidation preferences, then your profit from the options is still 2x the strike price. Loom is an odd case because the timing of their last round was simply perfect. It was announced in May 2021, which means the terms would've been set in Jan or Feb, when Tiger and other firms were on a rampage and competition to get into rounds was at its height. That last $130m has to have been on very favorable terms, not just the valuation but e.g. no crazy liquidation preference. So, unless Loom's founders made some inexplicably bad deals, I'd expect even recent hires to still make a little money. Nobody should be getting zeroed out.
      - y_gy 3y ago
        As I mentioned in another comment -- no, their options will not be underwater, because the strike on their options is set by the 409A value, which will have been far less than 1.5B. It wouldn't be unusual to see a company that's got its preferred stock valued at 1.5B and its 409A at 400M.
    - woeirua 3y ago
      TIL. Thanks for pointing that out!
    - wferrell 3y ago
      Are you counting employees that joined after the 1.5B valuation? I am sure they made money but not what was expected (exiting above 1.5B). How are you determining par for the course liq preference of 1.0? Where does that data come from? I ask genuinely as the small sample of companies I know of personally have liq preferences greater than 1.
      - depereo 3y ago
        if they had options, i.e the ability to purchase stock at, say, $10, but the company was sold with that stock being worth $9 only, then exercising those options would lose them money.
      - y_gy 3y ago
        Liq pref > 1 was extremely uncommon in the last 5 years. Employees who joined after the 1.5B valuation will have made money because the strike on their options is set by the 409A, which will have been far, far less than 1.5B. Preferred stock price is not the same as 409A common price.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
latchkey 3y ago
Wow, what a great filter the CEO came up with. If someone doesn't want to use the product, they probably won't make a good fit to work there.
- malfist 3y ago
  You don't have to drink the koolaide to be a productive member of the team. Drinking the koolaide doesn't mean you'll be a productive member of the team. Pretty pointless of a filter
  - HL33tibCe7 3y ago
    Maybe in a big company, but actually I completely disagree with this in the context of a small startup. In that context, having a tight team of people who are highly passionate about the product is _essential_.
    - malfist 3y ago
      I think you can be highly passionate about solving complex problems without being highly passionate about the product
      - misschresser 3y ago
        The only real complex problem a start-up has to solve is making the product successful. Engineers that love "complex problems" with no love for the product / space it's in is usually a recipe for disaster.
      - dannyw 3y ago
        I think it's completely reasonable for a CEO to have a different view, and when you're a tiny startup, it's very fair.
      - dbbk 3y ago
        You can be, but I wouldn't hire that person. Why would I want an engineer who doesn't give a shit about the actual product they're responsible for?
paxys 3y ago
Why even apply to a company if you don't want to use their product?
- zoogeny 3y ago
  I thought (and still think) their product is a great idea. Some people here seem to think my objection was being asked to use the product. It was actually the content of the message I was asked to send that bothered me. It wasn't "explain how your experience would be useful in this role", or "explain your feelings on the technical aspects of this product". It was something closer to "show me how excited you are to work here". I don't know why but at the time it felt like being asked to grovel. My stupid pride, I guess.
  - paxys 3y ago
    Well were you excited to work there? For a startup that usually matters as much or more than technical skills and experience. If the founders are giving you a significant chunk of equity in their company then they want to make sure you are in it for the right reasons, and won't bounce as soon as you reach your vesting cliff. If you think answering this simple question is a hit on your pride then yeah, you were probably not a good fit.
    - zoogeny 3y ago
      It is hard to remember how I felt about the company before (as opposed to the product idea). To be even more clear, the request was explicit. Like "we are super passionate about this product here and want people who are just as passionate, send us a video showing how excited you are". I'm sure some others can't understand and I view it as a mistake. 2 minutes of performative "I can' wait to be a full stack engineer!" or "we're really going to change he world!" energy might have netted me some big payout? If I passed the interview? Who knows. It's one thing to have genuine passion for working hard, doing a great job, making a great product. There is something else in being asked to make a video performance of that. It's something like how I hate leet code. It is almost just a hoop you jump through to prove you are willing to jump through hoops. But I suppose it does provide many companies with a lot of value. And some of those companies end up exiting high. Maybe if I was less prideful I could have taken more advantage.
dimgl 3y ago
This is hysterical. Looks like the CEO was spot-on.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

1123581321 3y ago

I like that. Much faster than writing a cover letter or application email and shows you understand what they make. I take it you weren’t that interested in their product.

WXLCKNO 3y ago

That's fine. Your options would have only been worth Checks notes Millions of dollars.

woeirua 3y ago
Nope. Loom was last valued at $1.5 billion in 2021, so with this acquisition a lot of people's options undoubtedly got totally wiped out due to liquidation preferences.
- y_gy 3y ago
  This comment misunderstands how liq pref works. Liq pref is about the amount of money invested ($175M), not about the valuation. At a $975M exit and a par-for-the-course liq pref of 1.0, it is very likely that all shareholders will have made money on the exit.
  - claytonjy 3y ago
    Shareholders who got in before that last round, that is. Employees who joined in the last few years will likely have underwater options unless Loom internally repriced already-granted options.
    - sushid 3y ago
      Why are they underwater? The "value" of their options would have been the preferred share - common share price. So it would have been a fat haircut but likely still netted them some number > common share price, no?
      - drexlspivey 3y ago
        The options are worth common share price - strike price. If the strike is higher they are worth zero
        FreakLegion 3y ago
        At exit the preferred shares become common, and the common shares increase in value accordingly. I've seen even series E companies that kept their common share price to under 20% of the preferred share price. If you started on day X with a common share price of 20% of the last preferred share price, and the company was acquired on day X + 1 at a discount, say 60% of the last preferred share price after factoring in liquidation preferences, then your profit from the options is still 2x the strike price. Loom is an odd case because the timing of their last round was simply perfect. It was announced in May 2021, which means the terms would've been set in Jan or Feb, when Tiger and other firms were on a rampage and competition to get into rounds was at its height. That last $130m has to have been on very favorable terms, not just the valuation but e.g. no crazy liquidation preference. So, unless Loom's founders made some inexplicably bad deals, I'd expect even recent hires to still make a little money. Nobody should be getting zeroed out.
    - y_gy 3y ago
      As I mentioned in another comment -- no, their options will not be underwater, because the strike on their options is set by the 409A value, which will have been far less than 1.5B. It wouldn't be unusual to see a company that's got its preferred stock valued at 1.5B and its 409A at 400M.
  - woeirua 3y ago
    TIL. Thanks for pointing that out!
  - wferrell 3y ago
    Are you counting employees that joined after the 1.5B valuation? I am sure they made money but not what was expected (exiting above 1.5B). How are you determining par for the course liq preference of 1.0? Where does that data come from? I ask genuinely as the small sample of companies I know of personally have liq preferences greater than 1.
    - depereo 3y ago
      if they had options, i.e the ability to purchase stock at, say, $10, but the company was sold with that stock being worth $9 only, then exercising those options would lose them money.
    - y_gy 3y ago
      Liq pref > 1 was extremely uncommon in the last 5 years. Employees who joined after the 1.5B valuation will have made money because the strike on their options is set by the 409A, which will have been far, far less than 1.5B. Preferred stock price is not the same as 409A common price.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

latchkey 3y ago

Wow, what a great filter the CEO came up with. If someone doesn't want to use the product, they probably won't make a good fit to work there.

malfist 3y ago
You don't have to drink the koolaide to be a productive member of the team. Drinking the koolaide doesn't mean you'll be a productive member of the team. Pretty pointless of a filter
- HL33tibCe7 3y ago
  Maybe in a big company, but actually I completely disagree with this in the context of a small startup. In that context, having a tight team of people who are highly passionate about the product is _essential_.
  - malfist 3y ago
    I think you can be highly passionate about solving complex problems without being highly passionate about the product
    - misschresser 3y ago
      The only real complex problem a start-up has to solve is making the product successful. Engineers that love "complex problems" with no love for the product / space it's in is usually a recipe for disaster.
    - dannyw 3y ago
      I think it's completely reasonable for a CEO to have a different view, and when you're a tiny startup, it's very fair.
    - dbbk 3y ago
      You can be, but I wouldn't hire that person. Why would I want an engineer who doesn't give a shit about the actual product they're responsible for?

paxys 3y ago

Why even apply to a company if you don't want to use their product?

zoogeny 3y ago
I thought (and still think) their product is a great idea. Some people here seem to think my objection was being asked to use the product. It was actually the content of the message I was asked to send that bothered me. It wasn't "explain how your experience would be useful in this role", or "explain your feelings on the technical aspects of this product". It was something closer to "show me how excited you are to work here". I don't know why but at the time it felt like being asked to grovel. My stupid pride, I guess.
- paxys 3y ago
  Well were you excited to work there? For a startup that usually matters as much or more than technical skills and experience. If the founders are giving you a significant chunk of equity in their company then they want to make sure you are in it for the right reasons, and won't bounce as soon as you reach your vesting cliff. If you think answering this simple question is a hit on your pride then yeah, you were probably not a good fit.
  - zoogeny 3y ago
    It is hard to remember how I felt about the company before (as opposed to the product idea). To be even more clear, the request was explicit. Like "we are super passionate about this product here and want people who are just as passionate, send us a video showing how excited you are". I'm sure some others can't understand and I view it as a mistake. 2 minutes of performative "I can' wait to be a full stack engineer!" or "we're really going to change he world!" energy might have netted me some big payout? If I passed the interview? Who knows. It's one thing to have genuine passion for working hard, doing a great job, making a great product. There is something else in being asked to make a video performance of that. It's something like how I hate leet code. It is almost just a hoop you jump through to prove you are willing to jump through hoops. But I suppose it does provide many companies with a lot of value. And some of those companies end up exiting high. Maybe if I was less prideful I could have taken more advantage.

dimgl 3y ago

This is hysterical. Looks like the CEO was spot-on.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]