3 ms·

By "cult" what I mean is a group of super high quality people who trust each other and have similar ways of thinking, learning, reacting, problem-solving and wo

By "cult" what I mean is a group of super high quality people who trust each other and have similar ways of thinking, learning, reacting, problem-solving and working together That is... not what a cult is. By "diaper", I mean the tool you use to pound nails in. The best way to prove to yourself and to potential investors that you have a killer idea is to see if you can get a number of A level engineers to join you by only offering them equity and no initial salary. First of all, this "real men don't take salary" nonsense is blatant classism. It makes the classism of "Hiring is Obsolete" appear subtle. Second, A-level engineers aren't going to take on personal financial risk for someone else's idea (unless they're rich, in which case, why aren't they angel investors?) It just does not happen. The sub-market salaries and low autonomy of typical startup jobs are going to attract B players, except in dogshit economic situations like November 2008 (which one hopes we'll never see again). How to convince a superstar to join you: "Let me rent you for 6 months. You'll learn an insane amount about building a startup from me that will help you prepare to start up your ﬁrst company. You'll have the pedigree of Powerset standing behind you; and you'll have some cash in your pocket." I'm probably too old to be considered a "superstar" by the sorts of asshats that VCs fund, but I would see this as akin to unpaid internships (in, say, publishing) that tout the career benefits (to which, the proper response is: "fuck you, pay me"). "This is a career opportunity for you" is such condescending shit it makes me want to vomit. It's saying, "I have connections and you're a middle-class fuckup, so work for me for free." I urge founders to offer people a one-month, auto-terminating, consulting contract that pays the person the exact amount of cash and equity (but in NSOs instead of ISOs) that the person would get if they were an employee. Yeah, fuck that shit. If I'm getting zero job security past one month (I know how to get a severance in almost any corporate job; I'm paranoid and well-studied) I'm charging a consulting rate. That's at least $250 per hour for someone like me. A typical tech salary, on a one-month contract? Fuck off. Start off by using relatively standard equity disbursals for each type of role - VCs can help, they have many, many stat sheets on this one. Standard equity disbursals are fucking pathetic and not going to attract anyone skilled. (You might get a stray, talented 22-year-old who doesn't yet know how good he is. One of him per 5 losers.) This doesn't matter for most startups because most of them are marketing gambits involving technology (not technology itself) and can do just fine with a mediocre tech team.

malandrew 13y ago
I'm probably too old to be considered a "superstar" by the sorts of asshats that VCs fund, but I would see this as akin to unpaid internships (in, say, publishing) that tout the career benefits (to which, the proper response is: "fuck you, pay me"). "This is a career opportunity for you" is such condescending shit it makes me want to vomit. It's saying, "I have connections and you're a middle-class fuckup, so work for me for free." These people are not doing unpaid internships. They are paid what they would be making doing a comparable job elsewhere. Yeah, fuck that shit. If I'm getting zero job security past one month (I know how to get a severance in almost any corporate job; I'm paranoid and well-studied) I'm charging a consulting rate. That's at least $250 per hour for someone like me. A typical tech salary, on a one-month contract? Fuck off. FWIW in Steve's companies people are paid market rate for this month. Consulting at $250 an hour is really only realistic if you are already working as a consulting, otherwise you're in the position of spending time getting clients. The overhead of getting clients for those not already consulting can easily drop your $250 an hour to $100 an hour for a one month gig. Standard equity disbursals are fucking pathetic and not going to attract anyone skilled. (You might get a stray, talented 22-year-old who doesn't yet know how good he is. One of him per 5 losers.) This doesn't matter for most startups because most of them are marketing gambits involving technology (not technology itself) and can do just fine with a mediocre tech team. IMHO standard equity disbursals based on the tables from top VCs could be better, but the amount of equity given out is related to the amount of risk involved. If a startup raised money from a Greylock, Sequoia, A16Z, Benchmark, etc, than that startup has less risk than a startup with funding from Joe Schmoe VC. The top VCs offer a lot more support than cash. Some of the top VCs have hiring departments have helped find us excellent candidates working big company jobs that are quietly open to working for an rising star startup. I've heard enough pitches from startups working on mediocre ideas with no idea on what their revenue model might be. I'd take 0.1 to 1% at a startup with a much more real chance of success where I will work with better people than 10% of options in a stock that wouldn't even get listed on SHITDAQ. I would love it if equity disbursals were better, but the game is what it is and anyone who actually wants to make money off equity needs to be a founder. If your plan is to make money off equity, you need to plan to be a founder someday and you need to be playing the cards you have now in a way that you get dealt a solid hand later when you are the founder. It's basically like counting cards. Make lots of small bets where you don't make a lot of money and probably leave money on the table until you see that the shoe is set up in a way that you know your odds are pretty solid and you then start making bigger bets. I recommend that people optimize for the quality of people they work with and the opportunities that get them the most valuable connections and opportunities long term. Unless you're among the first 5 employees, trying to optimize for equity is naïve. So few companies are going to be a $1 billion + exit that your statistical chances of choosing one of those while being among the first 10-20 employees is stupidly low. This post from Robert Cezar Matei is highly instructive: http://www.quora.com/Instagram/Did-anyone-decline-an-offer-to-work-at-Instagram/answer/Robert-Cezar-Matei http://www.quora.com/Instagram/Did-anyone-decline-an-offer-t... At the end of the day, everyone should evaluate stock options on the following scale ... Are options from this company likely to afford me a new car, new house or a new life. Unless you can answer new life or possibly new house with a straight face, you should optimize for salary if you don't plan on founder a company and if you do, you should optimize for what increases your chances later of hiring the best people, raising the most money and giving up the least equity. Founding a company and achieving a successful life changing exit is a long game. Disclaimer: I currently work for Steve.

malandrew 13y ago

I'm probably too old to be considered a "superstar" by the sorts of asshats that VCs fund, but I would see this as akin to unpaid internships (in, say, publishing) that tout the career benefits (to which, the proper response is: "fuck you, pay me"). "This is a career opportunity for you" is such condescending shit it makes me want to vomit. It's saying, "I have connections and you're a middle-class fuckup, so work for me for free." These people are not doing unpaid internships. They are paid what they would be making doing a comparable job elsewhere. Yeah, fuck that shit. If I'm getting zero job security past one month (I know how to get a severance in almost any corporate job; I'm paranoid and well-studied) I'm charging a consulting rate. That's at least $250 per hour for someone like me. A typical tech salary, on a one-month contract? Fuck off. FWIW in Steve's companies people are paid market rate for this month. Consulting at $250 an hour is really only realistic if you are already working as a consulting, otherwise you're in the position of spending time getting clients. The overhead of getting clients for those not already consulting can easily drop your $250 an hour to $100 an hour for a one month gig. Standard equity disbursals are fucking pathetic and not going to attract anyone skilled. (You might get a stray, talented 22-year-old who doesn't yet know how good he is. One of him per 5 losers.) This doesn't matter for most startups because most of them are marketing gambits involving technology (not technology itself) and can do just fine with a mediocre tech team. IMHO standard equity disbursals based on the tables from top VCs could be better, but the amount of equity given out is related to the amount of risk involved. If a startup raised money from a Greylock, Sequoia, A16Z, Benchmark, etc, than that startup has less risk than a startup with funding from Joe Schmoe VC. The top VCs offer a lot more support than cash. Some of the top VCs have hiring departments have helped find us excellent candidates working big company jobs that are quietly open to working for an rising star startup. I've heard enough pitches from startups working on mediocre ideas with no idea on what their revenue model might be. I'd take 0.1 to 1% at a startup with a much more real chance of success where I will work with better people than 10% of options in a stock that wouldn't even get listed on SHITDAQ. I would love it if equity disbursals were better, but the game is what it is and anyone who actually wants to make money off equity needs to be a founder. If your plan is to make money off equity, you need to plan to be a founder someday and you need to be playing the cards you have now in a way that you get dealt a solid hand later when you are the founder. It's basically like counting cards. Make lots of small bets where you don't make a lot of money and probably leave money on the table until you see that the shoe is set up in a way that you know your odds are pretty solid and you then start making bigger bets. I recommend that people optimize for the quality of people they work with and the opportunities that get them the most valuable connections and opportunities long term. Unless you're among the first 5 employees, trying to optimize for equity is naïve. So few companies are going to be a $1 billion + exit that your statistical chances of choosing one of those while being among the first 10-20 employees is stupidly low. This post from Robert Cezar Matei is highly instructive: http://www.quora.com/Instagram/Did-anyone-decline-an-offer-to-work-at-Instagram/answer/Robert-Cezar-Matei http://www.quora.com/Instagram/Did-anyone-decline-an-offer-t... At the end of the day, everyone should evaluate stock options on the following scale ... Are options from this company likely to afford me a new car, new house or a new life. Unless you can answer new life or possibly new house with a straight face, you should optimize for salary if you don't plan on founder a company and if you do, you should optimize for what increases your chances later of hiring the best people, raising the most money and giving up the least equity. Founding a company and achieving a successful life changing exit is a long game. Disclaimer: I currently work for Steve.