3 ms·

I'm a bit curious here, since it feels like some information is missing. You left this company in 2016, so by now, you know the outcome. You were there for und

I'm a bit curious here, since it feels like some information is missing. You left this company in 2016, so by now, you know the outcome. You were there for under 2 years, so you only vested half. Based on my Googling, nothing physical was released and the company barely had a footprint. There's a patent (from when you would have been there), but neither you nor the "big rich man" are on it. It's also based in Oslo, which feels important to note. I can't put my finger on it, but something feels very off here. I do agree the Reddit comments were quite inept, but at the same time, the conclusion doesn't resonate with me. I think the real conclusion should be: A lot of startups are somewhere between risky and a straight-up scam, and very few are the next Google. If you're going to join a startup, YOU need to make sure it's the right one. If you don't have money, time is your most valuable asset, and you should be incredibly thoughtful about how you invest it.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Also, it is unclear what the posters goal is. Are they looking for advice on actions they can take? Looking for sympathy? Trying to make a political point? Seems strange from a self described serial founder with 20 projects under their belt.
- gkoberger 3y ago
  He's currently trying to be an indie hacker influencer (and his products are sold to other indie hackers), so he just posts threads like this on Reddit/Twitter/etc. It's meant to gin up anger for the sake of engagement. https://twitter.com/johnrushx/status/1758876724123619497 https://twitter.com/johnrushx/status/1758876724123619497
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Yeah this guy seems a bit odd to say the least. It just doesn’t make sense to care so much about a 15% or 0.15% stake of an almost closed down company and that produced nothing notable. Especially when they were offered upfront to put in money, and likely had it spelled out what that means and implies.
- iwontberude 3y ago
  It’s the exposure of their vulnerable self. It’s commendable because we can learn from them. It seems like they are warning us to not let angel investors trick us into thinking we can hang with them in later rounds of funding that will very likely be necessary. It’s also a warning to put your loved ones first because business isn’t guaranteed. One likely regrets ending relationships after flaking out because one was greedier than one was smart.
  - gkoberger 3y ago
    If we take this story at face value, this was a recap. It’s basically the same as shutting the company down and starting over. It’s not ideal, but this only happens if everyone agrees the company is basically worth $0. Remember, the other investors also lost all their money, not just him. If you’re going to say it’s your startup and put founder in your title, you also have to be responsible for it succeeding. You don’t get to have it both ways. EDIT: parent comment was edited to say it’s him being vulnerable. I don’t think so; it’s him farming engagement for marketing.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
rattray 3y ago
Agreed - is the problem really that heavy dilution occurred, or that the startup became ~worthless? (as most do) It is worth bearing in mind when folks are joining an early stage company (as cofounder or founding engineer) that dilution will occur, and that - especially if you don't stay with the company and continue to be valuable - it may be heavy (though usually not nearly this heavy)

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Also, it is unclear what the posters goal is. Are they looking for advice on actions they can take? Looking for sympathy? Trying to make a political point? Seems strange from a self described serial founder with 20 projects under their belt.

gkoberger 3y ago
He's currently trying to be an indie hacker influencer (and his products are sold to other indie hackers), so he just posts threads like this on Reddit/Twitter/etc. It's meant to gin up anger for the sake of engagement. https://twitter.com/johnrushx/status/1758876724123619497 https://twitter.com/johnrushx/status/1758876724123619497
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Yeah this guy seems a bit odd to say the least. It just doesn’t make sense to care so much about a 15% or 0.15% stake of an almost closed down company and that produced nothing notable. Especially when they were offered upfront to put in money, and likely had it spelled out what that means and implies.
iwontberude 3y ago
It’s the exposure of their vulnerable self. It’s commendable because we can learn from them. It seems like they are warning us to not let angel investors trick us into thinking we can hang with them in later rounds of funding that will very likely be necessary. It’s also a warning to put your loved ones first because business isn’t guaranteed. One likely regrets ending relationships after flaking out because one was greedier than one was smart.
- gkoberger 3y ago
  If we take this story at face value, this was a recap. It’s basically the same as shutting the company down and starting over. It’s not ideal, but this only happens if everyone agrees the company is basically worth $0. Remember, the other investors also lost all their money, not just him. If you’re going to say it’s your startup and put founder in your title, you also have to be responsible for it succeeding. You don’t get to have it both ways. EDIT: parent comment was edited to say it’s him being vulnerable. I don’t think so; it’s him farming engagement for marketing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

rattray 3y ago

Agreed - is the problem really that heavy dilution occurred, or that the startup became ~worthless? (as most do) It is worth bearing in mind when folks are joining an early stage company (as cofounder or founding engineer) that dilution will occur, and that - especially if you don't stay with the company and continue to be valuable - it may be heavy (though usually not nearly this heavy)