3 ms·

There's something fishy about this story. Either you're not telling all of it, or... You joined before money was raised, and possibly got an oversized equity

by fizx 13y ago

There's something fishy about this story. Either you're not telling all of it, or... You joined before money was raised, and possibly got an oversized equity stake that is being clawed back. If you were supposed to have more than 1%, I'd consider it possible. If you were supposed to have 5%, I'd consider it a certainty. If my guess is correct, you should talk to a lawyer. You may have options.

alexkorchinski 13y ago
Nope, my equity would have vested at less than 1%. I was still a few months away from my one year cliff. Lawyer would have been nice, but I already signed an Employer Termination Contract, so what's done is done.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Lawyer would have been nice, but I already signed an Employer Termination Contract, so what's done is done. You signed it without a lawyer? Dear God... What was in the contract? Did you get anything? Given that they clawed back a bunch of equity, you better have gotten 3 months' severance or a legally binding agreement to positive reference and introductions (at your demand) to present and future investors. An AoI (Agreement of Introduction) can make it worth it to go gently into the good night because those intros can make you a founder in your next gig. If you got two weeks severance and no AoI, then you're an idiot and you should stop blogging about this before you embarrass yourself more. (I'm being blunt because people like you get screwed over every day and the only way to stop it is to fight harder when it happens.)
  - dchichkov 13y ago
    From pure math perspective that 1-yr cliff + 4-yr vesting function should be imperfect for employees AND for companies. Because of uncertainty of stocks ownership and a potential to create sharp conflicts of interests, lawsuits, etc. at the discontinuity. It is fine to have decelerated of accelerated vesting schedule. But there should be no discontinuities. On the other hand, from a human perspective maybe having such conflict of interests is actually good. It gives a chance for CEO to show his true colors earlier and consequently for employees to take note and re-estimate the risk of having the same experience at some later time or even during the exit.
baddox 13y ago
Out of curiosity, what might those options be? It seems like part of the point of vesting schedules is so that the company can get rid of you if they want to before you vest.
gte910h 13y ago
Look at the comments to the article, links to another blog post that is likely the reason why IMO
- GFischer 13y ago
  It's certainly brave to write about that subject under your own name. I agree with the commenter that it'd make me more likely to hire him, not less, but other people might disagree. Still, I don't think that was the reason (it's an October post). The vesting cliff is a more likely trigger.

by fizx 13y ago

alexkorchinski 13y ago

Nope, my equity would have vested at less than 1%. I was still a few months away from my one year cliff. Lawyer would have been nice, but I already signed an Employer Termination Contract, so what's done is done.

michaelochurch 13y ago
Lawyer would have been nice, but I already signed an Employer Termination Contract, so what's done is done. You signed it without a lawyer? Dear God... What was in the contract? Did you get anything? Given that they clawed back a bunch of equity, you better have gotten 3 months' severance or a legally binding agreement to positive reference and introductions (at your demand) to present and future investors. An AoI (Agreement of Introduction) can make it worth it to go gently into the good night because those intros can make you a founder in your next gig. If you got two weeks severance and no AoI, then you're an idiot and you should stop blogging about this before you embarrass yourself more. (I'm being blunt because people like you get screwed over every day and the only way to stop it is to fight harder when it happens.)
- dchichkov 13y ago
  From pure math perspective that 1-yr cliff + 4-yr vesting function should be imperfect for employees AND for companies. Because of uncertainty of stocks ownership and a potential to create sharp conflicts of interests, lawsuits, etc. at the discontinuity. It is fine to have decelerated of accelerated vesting schedule. But there should be no discontinuities. On the other hand, from a human perspective maybe having such conflict of interests is actually good. It gives a chance for CEO to show his true colors earlier and consequently for employees to take note and re-estimate the risk of having the same experience at some later time or even during the exit.

baddox 13y ago

Out of curiosity, what might those options be? It seems like part of the point of vesting schedules is so that the company can get rid of you if they want to before you vest.

gte910h 13y ago

Look at the comments to the article, links to another blog post that is likely the reason why IMO

GFischer 13y ago
It's certainly brave to write about that subject under your own name. I agree with the commenter that it'd make me more likely to hire him, not less, but other people might disagree. Still, I don't think that was the reason (it's an October post). The vesting cliff is a more likely trigger.