6 ms·

It's interesting how neither of the founders fit any of the stereotypical valley founder profiles. They don't look like Mark Zuckerberg, they are older, Brian A

It's interesting how neither of the founders fit any of the stereotypical valley founder profiles. They don't look like Mark Zuckerberg, they are older, Brian Acton barely used twitter, and his tech background is more traditional (C, C++, Perl, etc).

lolwutf 13y ago
Any word on if either were married?
- shutupalready 13y ago
  And if they were, I hope they were also smart enough to have prenups. This brings up a question: Is it even possible to make a prenup that covers future windfills? E.g., a prenup that protects your wealth in a company that hasn't yet been founded.
  - craigvn 13y ago
    Of course you could just get married for life.
    - sneak 13y ago
      The tricky part of adhering to that doctrine is not the married part. It's the not getting married if it might not be for life part.
  - techsupporter 13y ago
    By definition, a prenuptial agreement only covers entering into the marriage. Future assets, especially in community property states, usually have to be specifically disclaimed by the other party in the marriage before they can be considered separate property. For example: A prenup can't specify that a house bought after marriage is separate property, but the non-owning spouse can voluntarily sign away rights to that property as a recorded instrument. This is why some deeds say "John A. Doe, Grantee, a married man as his sole and separate property." (Some states allow for property purchased with separate assets to remain separate inside the marriage but the paper trail on this better be meticulous if a divorce ever happens.) Editorializing: Why would a spouse be no less entitled to reap the rewards generated by the other spouse's start-up? A relationship, especially a marriage, is inherently two people acting as a unit, so just because one spouse didn't sling PHP and research lambdas all night doesn't mean that either spouse's contribution is more or less valuable. If my spouse accomplished something like this, I'd be thrilled at the success and genuinely looking forward to our life together with much less time and stress investment from both of us, since that means that I was also picking up a lot more of the "home life."
    - shutupalready 13y ago
      > Why would a spouse be no less entitled to reap the rewards OK, I'll bite. What if one of these situations: 1) What if the spouse was dead set against the start-up, and did everything possible to dissuade you, but you succeeded anyway. 2) What if you used your own money and assets from before the marriage to finance it? And what if those monies and assets were covered by the prenup; the company financed by those investments would or wouldn't be covered? 3) What if you founded the company when the marriage was in obvious decline and you both knew you'd eventually get divorced? What if you founded it when you were already separated? 4) Many companies with 2 founders don't have a 50:50 split. Why does the split with the spouse need to be 50:50 in the case of a company? Why shouldn't it be 60:40 or 90:10 assuming we accept the notion that the spouse must have been contributing something and is entitled.
      - pseut 13y ago
        Then tear up the pre-nup and sign a new contract.
    - hueving 13y ago
      >Why would a spouse be no less entitled to reap the rewards generated by the other spouse's start-up? Because just sitting around giving emotional support to someone doesn't entitle you to half of everything they get. It doesn't work that way with any other relationship (parent, friend, etc), so why should a marriage? This is especially true if both partners are working.
      - declan 13y ago
        I think if you view marriage as "just sitting around," this is not the type of romantic relationship that describes what typical founders likely seek out. To answer your point more directly, one difference is that a marriage tends to produce children in a way that platonic friendships tend not do. My sense is that equal division of significant income and equity post-marriage will help, not hurt, children. To answer your point a different way, the default marital property settings tend to work well for most people. Of course you can change those defaults to some extent with prenups, postnups, trusts, and so on. If you're still dissatisfied with your ability to alter those defaults, well, nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to marry someone you like to live with, have sex with, and even raise kids with.
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    >Is it even possible to make a prenup that covers future windfills? E.g., a prenup that protects your wealth in a company that hasn't yet been founded. Yes. It's a contract; you can do what you like within the normal legal boundaries (although certain provisions, e.g. child custody are likely to be thrown out if ever challenged).
- prostoalex 13y ago
  http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/19/facebooks-whatsapp-acquisition-snapchat/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/19/facebooks-whatsapp-acquisit... "I’m 42, essentially married with a kid. I don’t give a shit about this. I’m not sexting with random strangers."
oscargrouch 13y ago
Thats good.. because stereotypes for people are a stupid thing.. human beings will break all of them.. Someday it will be a elderly woman, a kid, etc.. The Ocidental culture has a severe problem dealing with the impermanence and the unpredictable.. we need to get over it.. more zen-budhism, please?! :)
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Last I checked, Buddhism was a caste religion.
  - barry-cotter 13y ago
    Buddhism is not Hinduism. Other dharmic religions that disavow castes include Sikhism and Jainism.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      "...various forms of the caste system are practised in several Buddhist countries, mainly in Sri Lanka, Tibet, and Japan where butchers, leather and metal workers and janitors are sometimes regarded as being impure. However, the system in these countries has never been either as severe or as rigid as the Hindu system and fortunately it is now beginning to fade away. The exception to this is Nepal where Tantric priests form a separate caste and will neither initiate into their priesthood or allow into their temples those of other castes." http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd53.htm http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd53.htm
      - lemonberry 13y ago
        Read what you linked to again. It says Brahmanism was a caste religion. It then goes on to say "The Buddha, himself born into the warrior caste, was a severe critic of the caste system." Then "Even during the time when Buddhism was decaying in India and Tantrayana had adopted many aspects of Hinduism, it continued to welcome all castes and some of the greatest Tantric adepts were low castes or outcastes." It then states that "despite this, various forms of the caste system are practised in several Buddhist countries". "Buddhist" countries having castes is not the same as Buddhism being a caste religion. Buddhism is not a caste religion.
gojomo 13y ago
You may be getting your stereotypes from the wrong teen-beat outlets! Koum: No-nonsense immigrant from group persecuted in home country, family emphasis on education, using computers since a teen, drops out of college when career responsibilities grow. Acton: Early employee at one of the most-successful companies of an era, lots of deep systems experience, takes time to consider "next adventure", cofounds with prior coworker and leans on other colleagues for seed funding. That's about as stereotypical as real Valley founders get.
alecco 13y ago
"I want to stress the importance of being young and technical," Facebook's CEO (now 28) told a Y Combinator Startup event at Stanford University in 2007. "Young people are just smarter. Why are most chess masters under 30? I don't know. Young people just have simpler lives. We may not own a car. We may not have family. Simplicity in life allows you to focus on what's important." http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/In-Silicon-Valley-age-can-be-a-curse-4742365.php http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/In-Silicon... Over 30's programmers raise our glasses to Acton and Koum.
- jaimebuelta 13y ago
  Eh? What? Is that for real? While it is true that GREAT developers can also be young, they are not magically getting dumber when they age. Also it may be easier to be disruptive if you're young (meaning you are naïve enough to think you can change stuff, most of the times you'll be wrong, though) but smarter? Really? I find this a quite stupid statement, to be honest...
  - flinty 13y ago
    Sounds like pandering to the target crowd which is under 25 at the university and hoping some of them would come work for FB at that point of time.
  - mhartl 13y ago
    I was there. It's for real. He's wrong about chess masters, too, Magnus Carlsen notwithstanding. (Chess players typically peak in their mid-30s or early 40s.)

lolwutf 13y ago

Any word on if either were married?

shutupalready 13y ago
And if they were, I hope they were also smart enough to have prenups. This brings up a question: Is it even possible to make a prenup that covers future windfills? E.g., a prenup that protects your wealth in a company that hasn't yet been founded.
- craigvn 13y ago
  Of course you could just get married for life.
  - sneak 13y ago
    The tricky part of adhering to that doctrine is not the married part. It's the not getting married if it might not be for life part.
- techsupporter 13y ago
  By definition, a prenuptial agreement only covers entering into the marriage. Future assets, especially in community property states, usually have to be specifically disclaimed by the other party in the marriage before they can be considered separate property. For example: A prenup can't specify that a house bought after marriage is separate property, but the non-owning spouse can voluntarily sign away rights to that property as a recorded instrument. This is why some deeds say "John A. Doe, Grantee, a married man as his sole and separate property." (Some states allow for property purchased with separate assets to remain separate inside the marriage but the paper trail on this better be meticulous if a divorce ever happens.) Editorializing: Why would a spouse be no less entitled to reap the rewards generated by the other spouse's start-up? A relationship, especially a marriage, is inherently two people acting as a unit, so just because one spouse didn't sling PHP and research lambdas all night doesn't mean that either spouse's contribution is more or less valuable. If my spouse accomplished something like this, I'd be thrilled at the success and genuinely looking forward to our life together with much less time and stress investment from both of us, since that means that I was also picking up a lot more of the "home life."
  - shutupalready 13y ago
    > Why would a spouse be no less entitled to reap the rewards OK, I'll bite. What if one of these situations: 1) What if the spouse was dead set against the start-up, and did everything possible to dissuade you, but you succeeded anyway. 2) What if you used your own money and assets from before the marriage to finance it? And what if those monies and assets were covered by the prenup; the company financed by those investments would or wouldn't be covered? 3) What if you founded the company when the marriage was in obvious decline and you both knew you'd eventually get divorced? What if you founded it when you were already separated? 4) Many companies with 2 founders don't have a 50:50 split. Why does the split with the spouse need to be 50:50 in the case of a company? Why shouldn't it be 60:40 or 90:10 assuming we accept the notion that the spouse must have been contributing something and is entitled.
    - pseut 13y ago
      Then tear up the pre-nup and sign a new contract.
  - hueving 13y ago
    >Why would a spouse be no less entitled to reap the rewards generated by the other spouse's start-up? Because just sitting around giving emotional support to someone doesn't entitle you to half of everything they get. It doesn't work that way with any other relationship (parent, friend, etc), so why should a marriage? This is especially true if both partners are working.
    - declan 13y ago
      I think if you view marriage as "just sitting around," this is not the type of romantic relationship that describes what typical founders likely seek out. To answer your point more directly, one difference is that a marriage tends to produce children in a way that platonic friendships tend not do. My sense is that equal division of significant income and equity post-marriage will help, not hurt, children. To answer your point a different way, the default marital property settings tend to work well for most people. Of course you can change those defaults to some extent with prenups, postnups, trusts, and so on. If you're still dissatisfied with your ability to alter those defaults, well, nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to marry someone you like to live with, have sex with, and even raise kids with.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  >Is it even possible to make a prenup that covers future windfills? E.g., a prenup that protects your wealth in a company that hasn't yet been founded. Yes. It's a contract; you can do what you like within the normal legal boundaries (although certain provisions, e.g. child custody are likely to be thrown out if ever challenged).
prostoalex 13y ago
http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/19/facebooks-whatsapp-acquisition-snapchat/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/19/facebooks-whatsapp-acquisit... "I’m 42, essentially married with a kid. I don’t give a shit about this. I’m not sexting with random strangers."

oscargrouch 13y ago

Thats good.. because stereotypes for people are a stupid thing.. human beings will break all of them.. Someday it will be a elderly woman, a kid, etc.. The Ocidental culture has a severe problem dealing with the impermanence and the unpredictable.. we need to get over it.. more zen-budhism, please?! :)

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Last I checked, Buddhism was a caste religion.
- barry-cotter 13y ago
  Buddhism is not Hinduism. Other dharmic religions that disavow castes include Sikhism and Jainism.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    "...various forms of the caste system are practised in several Buddhist countries, mainly in Sri Lanka, Tibet, and Japan where butchers, leather and metal workers and janitors are sometimes regarded as being impure. However, the system in these countries has never been either as severe or as rigid as the Hindu system and fortunately it is now beginning to fade away. The exception to this is Nepal where Tantric priests form a separate caste and will neither initiate into their priesthood or allow into their temples those of other castes." http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd53.htm http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd53.htm
    - lemonberry 13y ago
      Read what you linked to again. It says Brahmanism was a caste religion. It then goes on to say "The Buddha, himself born into the warrior caste, was a severe critic of the caste system." Then "Even during the time when Buddhism was decaying in India and Tantrayana had adopted many aspects of Hinduism, it continued to welcome all castes and some of the greatest Tantric adepts were low castes or outcastes." It then states that "despite this, various forms of the caste system are practised in several Buddhist countries". "Buddhist" countries having castes is not the same as Buddhism being a caste religion. Buddhism is not a caste religion.

gojomo 13y ago

You may be getting your stereotypes from the wrong teen-beat outlets! Koum: No-nonsense immigrant from group persecuted in home country, family emphasis on education, using computers since a teen, drops out of college when career responsibilities grow. Acton: Early employee at one of the most-successful companies of an era, lots of deep systems experience, takes time to consider "next adventure", cofounds with prior coworker and leans on other colleagues for seed funding. That's about as stereotypical as real Valley founders get.

alecco 13y ago

"I want to stress the importance of being young and technical," Facebook's CEO (now 28) told a Y Combinator Startup event at Stanford University in 2007. "Young people are just smarter. Why are most chess masters under 30? I don't know. Young people just have simpler lives. We may not own a car. We may not have family. Simplicity in life allows you to focus on what's important." http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/In-Silicon-Valley-age-can-be-a-curse-4742365.php http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/In-Silicon... Over 30's programmers raise our glasses to Acton and Koum.

jaimebuelta 13y ago
Eh? What? Is that for real? While it is true that GREAT developers can also be young, they are not magically getting dumber when they age. Also it may be easier to be disruptive if you're young (meaning you are naïve enough to think you can change stuff, most of the times you'll be wrong, though) but smarter? Really? I find this a quite stupid statement, to be honest...
- flinty 13y ago
  Sounds like pandering to the target crowd which is under 25 at the university and hoping some of them would come work for FB at that point of time.
- mhartl 13y ago
  I was there. It's for real. He's wrong about chess masters, too, Magnus Carlsen notwithstanding. (Chess players typically peak in their mid-30s or early 40s.)