3 ms·

I was the ~15th engineer at a YC startup that had a very big exit. Over 4 years I made less than $80k total (20k/yr) from my options while the founders made hig

I was the ~15th engineer at a YC startup that had a very big exit. Over 4 years I made less than $80k total (20k/yr) from my options while the founders made high 8 figures. Had I joined BigTech I would have made over $1 M just from stock and I would have worked less. Back during the dot com days, everyone from the secretaries to the chefs to the founders were getting rich but nowadays YC teaches their founders to keep the money and stock options for themselves and for the investors. The only way employees make life changing money is if the company exits for over $10B.

varelse 2y ago
[dead]
neilv 2y ago
> nowadays YC teaches their founders to keep the money and stock options for themselves and for the investors. In founder-matching profiles, I've started saying that I wanted to spread the wealth around with early hires, more than the convention. If founders win, the early hires also win. Lesson learned: no matter how busy a founder is, they are no less petty than anyone else, and some will make time for a call, just to see who this hippie a--h--- is. :)
- liontwist 2y ago
  I joined a startup that was big on this message. They were previously at startups and felt they didn’t get a fair share in an exit. Well it turns out even that wasn’t enough and they did the same thing. I suspect VCs control too much of the financing.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    Maybe, but people are generally like that. When they’re in the same situations they do the same things. I think few people are honest with themselves, or even know themselves what they would be like if situations were reversed.
  - MomsAVoxell 2y ago
    I’m not sure it’s just the financing being controlled by “the VC’s”, but also definitely the entire culture. I mean, the model for most companies - having a very heavy legal component when big money figures are being generated/spent - requires a great deal of bureaucracy which, somehow, inherently prohibits participation at an individual scale, in the massive profits. It seems that a lot of it hinges on the nature of work for hire. If only there were systems in place that could make every human being a work for hire payment, even those performing CEO duties, then possibly the profits would be easier to spread. I think a lot of startup problems exist in the Founder/CEO versus Founder/CTO versus Founder/CFO dynamic, which is what any company following the legislated structures must deal with. VC’s exploit these dynamics, they can do it with money/financing, and they can do it without it, as well. The crazy thing is, cases exist throughout history of three individuals getting together, building something great, and doing it without requiring any venture capital, generating through their own efforts, adventure capital.
nico 2y ago
We were rejected from YC because we wouldn’t dilute to 0 some of the early people at the company They first told us we were in, but that we would need to adjust our cap table so that only 2 founders would have equity. They gave us a phone call, we pushed back, and later they sent us a rejection email
- neilv 2y ago
  Commendable. We need more people with decency, principles, and backbone.
- gnkyfrg 2y ago
  [dead]
- auggierose 2y ago
  Interesting. Why would they care about something like that? Would it not just come out of the pockets of the 2 founders?
  - nico 2y ago
    Your guess is as good as mine. My memory is a bit fuzzy about the details now, but I remember a very awkward phone call with one of the partners in which they were saying things like “the cap table is too busy” and that they only wanted founders having equity We were willing to compromise to some degree, and the non-founders said they would give up most equity if that meant getting into YC But after the call, we got a rejection email saying something weird like “your cap table seems to be in flux”, thus disqualifying us
georgemcbay 2y ago
> Back during the dot com days, everyone from the secretaries to the chefs to the founders were getting rich As someone who is old enough to have been working in tech since the 1990s... not really. I mean, it happened on occasion but it wasn't actually a common occurrence even during the heyday of large dot com exits. The idea of this was massively propped up by overhyping the vanishingly few cases in which it did happen. I'm not at all refuting your basic point that the "we're all getting lambos" fiction got increasingly disconnected from reality over time, but it was always more apocryphal than real.
- gnkyfrg 2y ago
  [dead]
- blindriver 2y ago
  I also worked during the dotcom days and worked for a recently ipo'ed startup. Everyone made money from it, so this is from experience. One of the assistants made enough money to buy a vineyard and this was from a company that IPO'ed for less than $1 billion.
asdasdsddd 2y ago
How can that happen, can you share details?

varelse 2y ago

[dead]

neilv 2y ago

> nowadays YC teaches their founders to keep the money and stock options for themselves and for the investors. In founder-matching profiles, I've started saying that I wanted to spread the wealth around with early hires, more than the convention. If founders win, the early hires also win. Lesson learned: no matter how busy a founder is, they are no less petty than anyone else, and some will make time for a call, just to see who this hippie a--h--- is. :)

liontwist 2y ago
I joined a startup that was big on this message. They were previously at startups and felt they didn’t get a fair share in an exit. Well it turns out even that wasn’t enough and they did the same thing. I suspect VCs control too much of the financing.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  Maybe, but people are generally like that. When they’re in the same situations they do the same things. I think few people are honest with themselves, or even know themselves what they would be like if situations were reversed.
- MomsAVoxell 2y ago
  I’m not sure it’s just the financing being controlled by “the VC’s”, but also definitely the entire culture. I mean, the model for most companies - having a very heavy legal component when big money figures are being generated/spent - requires a great deal of bureaucracy which, somehow, inherently prohibits participation at an individual scale, in the massive profits. It seems that a lot of it hinges on the nature of work for hire. If only there were systems in place that could make every human being a work for hire payment, even those performing CEO duties, then possibly the profits would be easier to spread. I think a lot of startup problems exist in the Founder/CEO versus Founder/CTO versus Founder/CFO dynamic, which is what any company following the legislated structures must deal with. VC’s exploit these dynamics, they can do it with money/financing, and they can do it without it, as well. The crazy thing is, cases exist throughout history of three individuals getting together, building something great, and doing it without requiring any venture capital, generating through their own efforts, adventure capital.

nico 2y ago

We were rejected from YC because we wouldn’t dilute to 0 some of the early people at the company They first told us we were in, but that we would need to adjust our cap table so that only 2 founders would have equity. They gave us a phone call, we pushed back, and later they sent us a rejection email

neilv 2y ago
Commendable. We need more people with decency, principles, and backbone.
gnkyfrg 2y ago
[dead]
auggierose 2y ago
Interesting. Why would they care about something like that? Would it not just come out of the pockets of the 2 founders?
- nico 2y ago
  Your guess is as good as mine. My memory is a bit fuzzy about the details now, but I remember a very awkward phone call with one of the partners in which they were saying things like “the cap table is too busy” and that they only wanted founders having equity We were willing to compromise to some degree, and the non-founders said they would give up most equity if that meant getting into YC But after the call, we got a rejection email saying something weird like “your cap table seems to be in flux”, thus disqualifying us

georgemcbay 2y ago

> Back during the dot com days, everyone from the secretaries to the chefs to the founders were getting rich As someone who is old enough to have been working in tech since the 1990s... not really. I mean, it happened on occasion but it wasn't actually a common occurrence even during the heyday of large dot com exits. The idea of this was massively propped up by overhyping the vanishingly few cases in which it did happen. I'm not at all refuting your basic point that the "we're all getting lambos" fiction got increasingly disconnected from reality over time, but it was always more apocryphal than real.

gnkyfrg 2y ago
[dead]
blindriver 2y ago
I also worked during the dotcom days and worked for a recently ipo'ed startup. Everyone made money from it, so this is from experience. One of the assistants made enough money to buy a vineyard and this was from a company that IPO'ed for less than $1 billion.

asdasdsddd 2y ago

How can that happen, can you share details?