5 ms·
This is creative, but the problem with clever 'backpay' solutions and startups is that often they are starved for cash, so the extra 5% or 10% is valuable money
by cmos 18y ago
This is creative, but the problem with clever 'backpay' solutions and startups is that often they are starved for cash, so the extra 5% or 10% is valuable money that they could be using to grow the business.
From an owner's perspective, I would never spend future revenue today. What if your not making enough money to pay the bills, yet have to give a percentage of revenue to a developer? They aren't going to stick around if things get tough.
It would be slightly safer to agree to a percentage of profit, but much better to just give a percentage of the company. The same could be said for replacing the lower salary. When you go to work for a startup there is a reason you get paid less: cash in the early stages is extraordinarily precious. This can not be said loud enough. I would not work for a company that didn't understand this.
It's a battle to start a company, and you really need everyone "in the same boat". If it sinks, everyone loses out.
- anamax 18y ago> From an owner's perspective, I would never spend future revenue today. What if your not making enough money to pay the bills, yet have to give a percentage of revenue to a developer? They aren't going to stick around if things get tough. If they developed the product that's producing said revenue, why does it matter whether they're still around? Suppose that your product required an expensive piece of equipment and you didn't have enough cash to pay for it. (Or, you didn't want to pay cash.) Would you object to paying over time? Does the answer depend on whether the payments go to the manufacturer or a third-party? Yes, you might well prefer terms with a fixed cost but there's a considerable risk that they'll get nothing and it's unlikely that they can reuse the code elsewhere. (Besides, you probably insisted on an exclusive license.)