4 ms·

> that the purpose of building a business is just the exit The majority of those affected negatively by this are not the founders, but the employees. Many of t

> that the purpose of building a business is just the exit The majority of those affected negatively by this are not the founders, but the employees. Many of them may have turned down FAANG positions that come with predictable liquid RSUs. Some may have kids (in fact, I know someone at Figma who had a kid in the past year). Liquidity's not necessarily about opportunistically passing on risk...sometimes it's just about making a competitive living relative to being at a public company.

EricDeb 3y ago
Any chance figma can go public?
- neom 3y ago
  I'm sure these 30+ people want their 330+ Million dollars back with "profit", they need to find an exit somewhere. https://www.figma.com/blog/figmas-series-e/ https://www.figma.com/blog/figmas-series-e/
  - EdwardDiego 3y ago
    Figmates... oh God.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- dolmen 3y ago
  Figma employees should instead ask for a share of the $1B break-up fees.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I don't disagree with what you're saying, at all, but the implication is still basically "And employees want someone else to be a bag holder, too!" And having been in that position several times, I definitely don't blame them! Employees also have the much tougher constraints that they can't diversify their employment like VCs can diversify their investments. But still, it's the same dynamic that people want to get rich, and the downstream consequences be damned.
- amrocha 3y ago
  In practice, employee shares in a private company are not an "investment" because they can't be traded in an open market. So no, employees don't want someone else to hold the bag. Employees want a return on their investment, and the most viable way of doing that is through an exit.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    That's the whole point though - employees want an exit event so they can sell their shares and have someone else holding the bag.
    - crandycodes 3y ago
      That seems like an odd way to frame it, imo. "Holding the bag" usually implies something negative, as in someone will be "caught" with something bad. As in the employees are looking to dupe someone into buying what they are selling. But employees, outside of company officers, do not control what information investors get about what they are buying. They can't trick anyone into buying something, although they could theoretically benefit if someone else did trick buyers. But it's a weird take, because employees are already the ones "holding the bag". Office space, cloud compute, etc. are all sold as COGS. VCs usually have some ability to sell their shares on the private market since they can negotiate to get their capital. Employees are often the only ones which are taking an IOU for their time and effort compared to what they could get elsewhere in the market. Employees are often the lowest class of shares which get paid out last and often reliant on the board to be able to sell on the private market. Yes, the employees decided to take this offer, on good faith, that their management would look after them. They are adults who made a, theoretically, informed decision. But structurally, they are set up to be the ones "holding the bag" if things were to go wrong with an exit. So of course they want an exit. They literally have no other choice to get a return on their time/effort than for that to happen. (or some odd third thing like private dividends, but again, they have practically no control over that happening)
amrocha 3y ago
What does it matter if Figma employees have kids? Having kids is one of the most common human experiences.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
kelnos 3y ago
And that's the risk/bargain those employees accepted when they took the job at Figma rather than some public company with predictable equity comp. Look, it sucks, I get that. I was an employee at a successful startup that did end up going public and made me a bunch of money. But I also worked at three other startups that didn't go anywhere and my options/stock ended up being worthless. I also worked at a "boring" public company with equity comp that amounted to a pretty small (but helpful!) quarterly bonus. I accepted each of those jobs knowing what I was getting into, and knowing that I probably wouldn't see any kind of big payday (the one where I did was life-changing, but if that hadn't happened, I'd still be fine, financially). That's the nature of the beast. It's disappointing when it doesn't work out, but don't play the "some of them have kids" card: people need to plan their finances based on normal, expected outcomes, not on the moonshot. And regardless, Figma still seems like a great company, with great products. Employees will still likely do really well, whether through a different acquisition or by going public. They'll just have to wait longer.
Drew_ 3y ago
> The majority of those affected negatively by this are not the founders, but the employees. Well yes there are typically many more employees than there are founders. Despite this, founders probably missed out on orders of magnitude more money than all of the employees combined.
kalleboo 3y ago
Most people who have kids make a fraction of the average salary at figma, I don't see how they are sacrificing anything
gherkinnn 3y ago
[flagged]

EricDeb 3y ago

Any chance figma can go public?

neom 3y ago
I'm sure these 30+ people want their 330+ Million dollars back with "profit", they need to find an exit somewhere. https://www.figma.com/blog/figmas-series-e/ https://www.figma.com/blog/figmas-series-e/
- EdwardDiego 3y ago
  Figmates... oh God.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
dolmen 3y ago
Figma employees should instead ask for a share of the $1B break-up fees.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

I don't disagree with what you're saying, at all, but the implication is still basically "And employees want someone else to be a bag holder, too!" And having been in that position several times, I definitely don't blame them! Employees also have the much tougher constraints that they can't diversify their employment like VCs can diversify their investments. But still, it's the same dynamic that people want to get rich, and the downstream consequences be damned.

amrocha 3y ago
In practice, employee shares in a private company are not an "investment" because they can't be traded in an open market. So no, employees don't want someone else to hold the bag. Employees want a return on their investment, and the most viable way of doing that is through an exit.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  That's the whole point though - employees want an exit event so they can sell their shares and have someone else holding the bag.
  - crandycodes 3y ago
    That seems like an odd way to frame it, imo. "Holding the bag" usually implies something negative, as in someone will be "caught" with something bad. As in the employees are looking to dupe someone into buying what they are selling. But employees, outside of company officers, do not control what information investors get about what they are buying. They can't trick anyone into buying something, although they could theoretically benefit if someone else did trick buyers. But it's a weird take, because employees are already the ones "holding the bag". Office space, cloud compute, etc. are all sold as COGS. VCs usually have some ability to sell their shares on the private market since they can negotiate to get their capital. Employees are often the only ones which are taking an IOU for their time and effort compared to what they could get elsewhere in the market. Employees are often the lowest class of shares which get paid out last and often reliant on the board to be able to sell on the private market. Yes, the employees decided to take this offer, on good faith, that their management would look after them. They are adults who made a, theoretically, informed decision. But structurally, they are set up to be the ones "holding the bag" if things were to go wrong with an exit. So of course they want an exit. They literally have no other choice to get a return on their time/effort than for that to happen. (or some odd third thing like private dividends, but again, they have practically no control over that happening)

amrocha 3y ago

What does it matter if Figma employees have kids? Having kids is one of the most common human experiences.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

kelnos 3y ago

And that's the risk/bargain those employees accepted when they took the job at Figma rather than some public company with predictable equity comp. Look, it sucks, I get that. I was an employee at a successful startup that did end up going public and made me a bunch of money. But I also worked at three other startups that didn't go anywhere and my options/stock ended up being worthless. I also worked at a "boring" public company with equity comp that amounted to a pretty small (but helpful!) quarterly bonus. I accepted each of those jobs knowing what I was getting into, and knowing that I probably wouldn't see any kind of big payday (the one where I did was life-changing, but if that hadn't happened, I'd still be fine, financially). That's the nature of the beast. It's disappointing when it doesn't work out, but don't play the "some of them have kids" card: people need to plan their finances based on normal, expected outcomes, not on the moonshot. And regardless, Figma still seems like a great company, with great products. Employees will still likely do really well, whether through a different acquisition or by going public. They'll just have to wait longer.

Drew_ 3y ago

> The majority of those affected negatively by this are not the founders, but the employees. Well yes there are typically many more employees than there are founders. Despite this, founders probably missed out on orders of magnitude more money than all of the employees combined.

kalleboo 3y ago

Most people who have kids make a fraction of the average salary at figma, I don't see how they are sacrificing anything

gherkinnn 3y ago

[flagged]