4 ms·

I think this is the wrong advice. If the company is losing money or is a cash-strapped startup it isn't going to want to pay lawyers and accountants extra cash

I think this is the wrong advice. If the company is losing money or is a cash-strapped startup it isn't going to want to pay lawyers and accountants extra cash to restructure the business just to hire a developer. And the developer #1 position is critical enough no-one is going to want to screw them over lightly. If he's a new employee he should give his company the benefit of the doubt for a short time. And use the time to demonstrate his value. The thing to avoid is a drawn out process where it isn't clear what constitutes a reasonable timeframe for getting this problem solved and so it always gets pushed back. So get the milestones figured out. If now is not a convenient time, when is a convenient time? When you've been employed for three or six months? When the company hits major development or business milestones? If you can't get an oral commitment on this front I'd be concerned enough to look elsewhere.

sailormoon 17y ago
Yeah, but he's not getting any equity, removing the main reason for submitting to "startup rules". I agree with the grandparent - market rates & good conditions OR equity OR leave.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
They won't screw him over lightly while they are still starting up. Once they get larger, and the equity he should have gotten becomes worth something, it becomes considerably easier to replace him. Further, I'm concerned that they are not being honest with him (1% equity, oops maybe not). That doesn't mean he can't do business with them, but he should heavily discount the value of future promises.