4 ms·

Totally true. I developed the product that was responsible for >50% of the company's revenue and walked away with 0.04% at exit. It was decent, not life changi

Totally true. I developed the product that was responsible for >50% of the company's revenue and walked away with 0.04% at exit. It was decent, not life changing. I probably should have negotiated significantly higher. Hindsight etc.

bhangi 11y ago
That is $100k or $25K per year assuming a 4 year vesting schedule. Even assuming that you did not take a pay cut relative to working for a bigger or more established company, it seems a little low reward for the risk involved. Particularly considering that $250M exits have low odds to begin with.
- baudehlo 11y ago
  It was low risk on my behalf. A full time job taken in 2000 when everyone was letting people go (and I had been out of work for 6 months despite a high profile in the open source community). At a decent pay. I do think I should have at least negotiated double what I had. But I was young and had no clue about stock and exits etc. Even given that, I did ok considering I was #30. I still stand by what I said. The numbers are a bit off. A $250m exit is good for most of the early employees. Although of course a $250m exit is extremely rare.
  - 001sky 11y ago
    This is a personal success story, but...wasn't his point that unicorn employees at this level are going to (be able to) retire...along with the founders...while the next tier down only gets the downpayment on a mortgage...so net/net there is no "game change" unless one is deep in equity or the exit is $1Bn or more. That math is order of magntitude correct, isn't it? I don't see the conflict with what you are saying, you guys are both saying something that is true to some extent.
  - hga 11y ago
    A full time job taken in 2000 when everyone was letting people go (and I had been out of work for 6 months despite a high profile in the open source community). At a decent pay. While I grant that at that point in my life I was older than the startup norm (40 but very productive due to a quarter century's experience and study from the very start of software engineering), there was some serious value to such a job back then. I.e. a lot better than the job I took in semi-desperation at Lucent in 2001 just when it started downsizing from 106,000 to 35,000 employees.... And doing "OK" with equity being employee #30 plus the wonderful resume enhancer of "my product earned over 50% of the company's revenues" is not bad, not bad at all. Being able to tie a serious technical accomplishment to an outsized portion of the company's bottom line speaks to everyone.
justonepost 11y ago
Yeah, you should have negotiated for more if you tech lead on the most important product. 4 basis points for that is just wrong. It should have been 40 basis points.
- michaelochurch 11y ago
  I'd be curious to know what happened afterward in his career. The main benefit to joining a startup isn't even the equity (it's crappy everywhere, these days) but the opportunity for advancement. If you can get a high-level position that wouldn't otherwise be available and get promoted quickly, it can be worth it for the credibility. That said, many startups actually under-title their people and get into the social-climbing mentality in which the develop a pattern of hiring people above their old hands. If you work for one of those, then you should just get out. Companies tend to be either in a promote-from-within mode or a install-flashy-outsider mode, with not much of a middle ground. The second type of startup is good if you're an outsider, for bumping your comp and title, but not a place to stay for more than a couple of years and certainly not a place where you should work more than enough to hold place.
jacquesm 11y ago
Sorry, but that wasn't what I would call decent, though still congrats on being a key element in a project that size. Pity you did not get a fairer share.

bhangi 11y ago

That is $100k or $25K per year assuming a 4 year vesting schedule. Even assuming that you did not take a pay cut relative to working for a bigger or more established company, it seems a little low reward for the risk involved. Particularly considering that $250M exits have low odds to begin with.

baudehlo 11y ago
It was low risk on my behalf. A full time job taken in 2000 when everyone was letting people go (and I had been out of work for 6 months despite a high profile in the open source community). At a decent pay. I do think I should have at least negotiated double what I had. But I was young and had no clue about stock and exits etc. Even given that, I did ok considering I was #30. I still stand by what I said. The numbers are a bit off. A $250m exit is good for most of the early employees. Although of course a $250m exit is extremely rare.
- 001sky 11y ago
  This is a personal success story, but...wasn't his point that unicorn employees at this level are going to (be able to) retire...along with the founders...while the next tier down only gets the downpayment on a mortgage...so net/net there is no "game change" unless one is deep in equity or the exit is $1Bn or more. That math is order of magntitude correct, isn't it? I don't see the conflict with what you are saying, you guys are both saying something that is true to some extent.
- hga 11y ago
  A full time job taken in 2000 when everyone was letting people go (and I had been out of work for 6 months despite a high profile in the open source community). At a decent pay. While I grant that at that point in my life I was older than the startup norm (40 but very productive due to a quarter century's experience and study from the very start of software engineering), there was some serious value to such a job back then. I.e. a lot better than the job I took in semi-desperation at Lucent in 2001 just when it started downsizing from 106,000 to 35,000 employees.... And doing "OK" with equity being employee #30 plus the wonderful resume enhancer of "my product earned over 50% of the company's revenues" is not bad, not bad at all. Being able to tie a serious technical accomplishment to an outsized portion of the company's bottom line speaks to everyone.

justonepost 11y ago

Yeah, you should have negotiated for more if you tech lead on the most important product. 4 basis points for that is just wrong. It should have been 40 basis points.

michaelochurch 11y ago
I'd be curious to know what happened afterward in his career. The main benefit to joining a startup isn't even the equity (it's crappy everywhere, these days) but the opportunity for advancement. If you can get a high-level position that wouldn't otherwise be available and get promoted quickly, it can be worth it for the credibility. That said, many startups actually under-title their people and get into the social-climbing mentality in which the develop a pattern of hiring people above their old hands. If you work for one of those, then you should just get out. Companies tend to be either in a promote-from-within mode or a install-flashy-outsider mode, with not much of a middle ground. The second type of startup is good if you're an outsider, for bumping your comp and title, but not a place to stay for more than a couple of years and certainly not a place where you should work more than enough to hold place.

jacquesm 11y ago

Sorry, but that wasn't what I would call decent, though still congrats on being a key element in a project that size. Pity you did not get a fairer share.