3 ms·

This is one of the most confusing things I've ever read. Cognition acquired Windsurf. So how has he "joined Cognition"? "I had a place at Google DeepMind as p

This is one of the most confusing things I've ever read. Cognition acquired Windsurf. So how has he "joined Cognition"? "I had a place at Google DeepMind as part of the deal." What does that mean? DeepMind doesn't have anything to do with Cognition or Windsurf, right? Why would an offer at Google require forfeiting vested shares in Windsurf? Is that Windsurf policy or Cognition policy or Google policy? "I was ultimately given a payout of only 1% of what my shares would have been worth at the time of the deal." So he took the payout and forfeited the shares? "In going to Cognition, I’ve chosen a different direction." Or not, he rejected the payout and kept the shares? I can't even tell what's hypothetical versus what actually happened. I literally don't understand a single thing about this tweet. I've read all the comments here so far and my confusion seems to be shared. Can anyone who has context please help explain what's actually going on? And particularly how any company could force you to forfeit vested shares in a company?

shawabawa3 1y ago
You have to know some of the background Google poached windsurf employees and licensed their tech, paying out billions to upper management but apparently offering a fraction of the value of shares This employee chose to stick with windsurf instead of moving to Google Windsurf was then acquired by cognition for an unspecified but probably quite low amount So this employee is now at cognition
- crazygringo 1y ago
  Thank you, that helps! But so did he keep the shares or take the payout? Is the 1% payout an accurate reflection of Windsurf's value after having lost so many valuable employees? And why didn't he take the Google job? Was the 1% contingent on taking the Google job? But how could it be, since Google doesn't own Windsurf/Cognition? But if it did somehow, did it have a higher paycheck to compensate? Or was it contingent on staying at Windsurf/Cognition? This thing needs an in-depth blog post analysis. The tweet by itself isn't providing even close to the information necessary to understand what's actually going on.
  - cyanydeez 1y ago
    the board strokes is: Google should have bought the company. They didnt. They basically bought the employees. They call it a "acquihire". Without these employees, the real value of the company fell, allowing cognition to buy the company. Had the employee taken employement with Google, it's likely their shares in windsurf would have been voided, or otherwise not vested. Who knows, these private corporations are often doing a bunch of shady things to dilute share ownership. In a private company, there's no "real" public valuation of a share, so an employee who has some kind of stake really only has two real options to dump their shares, either through a company buying it (cognition) or the company going public. Without either of these events, it's really difficult, even if there's no contract about it, to sell the shares. So the value of the company took a nose dive in the private market through the hiring of windsurfs principals, and the employee either kept his shares and went with the company, or took a job with google. So the two values are: 1. Stay with Cognition and retain the private market shares of Windsurf and salary 2. Leave cognition, forfeit(?) the shares, get whatever salary google offered So those are the payouts being compared.
    - crazygringo 1y ago
      Thank you very much! So it seems like the crux of the issue still isn't clear, because: > Had the employee taken employement with Google, it's likely their shares in windsurf would have been voided, or otherwise not vested. That doesn't make any sense. The shares are already vested, they legally own them. How could they have been voided? The idea of joining Google resulting in a "1% payout" doesn't seem to make any sense? Why would there even be any payout at all? And is it mandatory? How could it be? And then it also doesn't even seem obviously terrible. If the valuation of Windsurf tanked, then is keeping the shares (now presumably converted to Cognition shares at a rate determined by the purchase?) even a better financial outcome? I agree that Google acquiring the talent rather than buying the company seems shady. But the "1% payout" still isn't making much sense here and needs a lot more details. Because it's still not even clear if the payout is from Google (huh?) or Cognition (why?), or how it could be a mandatory condition of employment at Google.
      - 1y ago
bryanrasmussen 1y ago
Writing for LinkedIn metrics means never having to make an understandable statement that someone could take exception to.

shawabawa3 1y ago

You have to know some of the background Google poached windsurf employees and licensed their tech, paying out billions to upper management but apparently offering a fraction of the value of shares This employee chose to stick with windsurf instead of moving to Google Windsurf was then acquired by cognition for an unspecified but probably quite low amount So this employee is now at cognition

crazygringo 1y ago
Thank you, that helps! But so did he keep the shares or take the payout? Is the 1% payout an accurate reflection of Windsurf's value after having lost so many valuable employees? And why didn't he take the Google job? Was the 1% contingent on taking the Google job? But how could it be, since Google doesn't own Windsurf/Cognition? But if it did somehow, did it have a higher paycheck to compensate? Or was it contingent on staying at Windsurf/Cognition? This thing needs an in-depth blog post analysis. The tweet by itself isn't providing even close to the information necessary to understand what's actually going on.
- cyanydeez 1y ago
  the board strokes is: Google should have bought the company. They didnt. They basically bought the employees. They call it a "acquihire". Without these employees, the real value of the company fell, allowing cognition to buy the company. Had the employee taken employement with Google, it's likely their shares in windsurf would have been voided, or otherwise not vested. Who knows, these private corporations are often doing a bunch of shady things to dilute share ownership. In a private company, there's no "real" public valuation of a share, so an employee who has some kind of stake really only has two real options to dump their shares, either through a company buying it (cognition) or the company going public. Without either of these events, it's really difficult, even if there's no contract about it, to sell the shares. So the value of the company took a nose dive in the private market through the hiring of windsurfs principals, and the employee either kept his shares and went with the company, or took a job with google. So the two values are: 1. Stay with Cognition and retain the private market shares of Windsurf and salary 2. Leave cognition, forfeit(?) the shares, get whatever salary google offered So those are the payouts being compared.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    Thank you very much! So it seems like the crux of the issue still isn't clear, because: > Had the employee taken employement with Google, it's likely their shares in windsurf would have been voided, or otherwise not vested. That doesn't make any sense. The shares are already vested, they legally own them. How could they have been voided? The idea of joining Google resulting in a "1% payout" doesn't seem to make any sense? Why would there even be any payout at all? And is it mandatory? How could it be? And then it also doesn't even seem obviously terrible. If the valuation of Windsurf tanked, then is keeping the shares (now presumably converted to Cognition shares at a rate determined by the purchase?) even a better financial outcome? I agree that Google acquiring the talent rather than buying the company seems shady. But the "1% payout" still isn't making much sense here and needs a lot more details. Because it's still not even clear if the payout is from Google (huh?) or Cognition (why?), or how it could be a mandatory condition of employment at Google.
    - 1y ago

bryanrasmussen 1y ago

Writing for LinkedIn metrics means never having to make an understandable statement that someone could take exception to.