3 ms·
It doesn't need to be coupled to "fire fast". It is only the first quarter (or even 6th in some vesting schemes) that vests after the cliff. In my vastly more
by rguzman 13y ago
It doesn't need to be coupled to "fire fast". It is only the first quarter (or even 6th in some vesting schemes) that vests after the cliff.
In my vastly more limited anecdotal experience than both of you guys', companies are not just stingy with equity, but they are also overly stingy with salaries.
- tptacek 13y agoAnother way I could say the same thing that sidesteps your argument is that the more generous you are with equity grants, the more ruthless you need to be about firing.
- freyrs3 13y agoSo then why take options at all? Statistically and economically there's little incentive to at that point, especially if management is going to create this toxic ruthless "fire fast" environment.
- tptacek 13y agoThe fact that employees and company principles value startup equity very differently is another reason why some companies are stingy about granting equity.
- beat 13y agoThat's especially true about the ongoing startup myth of underpaying because the equity is supposed to make up for it - and then being stingy with equity. Sheesh. 0.1% of a $50M buyout is $50k... how many years of salary loss is that worth at the risk? And that's assuming that 0.1% doesn't get diluted down to more like 0.05% by later funding rounds.