I have been on both sides of this, and have thoughts. What do you think is fair for employee #1 making at or near market rate?
To sum it up, I would expect a #1 engineers equity to be at least half of a founders equity AND payed at near-market rate.
About what kind of startup are we talking here? When we discuss #1 engineer compensation we are most likely talking about a very early stage company that likely lacks a profound company structure and employee benefits program. So I would assume that #1 engineers will most likely not be greeted with a good health insurance on the employer side.
Loss of medical benefits is just another number to add to thier salary. Statistically, equity especially for an unproven idea is meaningless. It’s likely not to be worth anything.
Three years as the lead engineer at even a failed startup looks a lot better on your resume than just being a low level drone at Microsoft. You will probably also have your hands in a lot more pots making you even more valuable.
Can get a job. There is no end to the stream of recruiters offering jobs that I am overqualified for and pay well below what I currently make. The companies that can match what I have now (which, to be honest, is still lower than I could get at the Google tier) are few and far between.
Sorry, but no. Jobs are very easy for a good dev. You are taking no zero risk as engineer #1 at a startup if your pay is market rate.
> and a possible kink in your CV (3 years at Microsoft look much better than spending 3 years at an unsuccessful company that eventually shut down).
To who? I would hire the 3 failed startup guy any day over the 14 years at Microsoft guy.
> To sum it up, I would expect a #1 engineers equity to be at least half of a founders equity AND payed at near-market rate.
Haha. I mean I guess it's fair to expect that. Maybe someone would give it to you. To me, it sees like a very inflated value of self worth if you are wanting to take little to no risk but then reap MOST of the benefits of being a founder.
If you need the best, you're going to have to pony up equity since you just can't compete otherwise. The open secret however, is that for most startups, you really don't need the best. You don't need top quality to throw together a web backend and a mobile app and start growing a base; for those companies it makes no sense to dilute the massive payout for the founders by sharing anything with the code monkey actually delivering the app.
Other commenters use different pronouns when describing hypothetical scenarios, and that's great, but it also sometimes triggers flamewars from a different direction.
Best to just avoid playing that game altogether.
Risks can be: Stress due to working more (wearing more hats, not enough employees) Not having a stable paycheck because company needs to pay venders otherwise they go bankrupt. Recession or downturn, loss of job immediately while big company can weather.
Etc...all the things not at a big company.
You realize not all job markets have developer jobs paying 400k?
Absolutely. Having said that, I won't join non-SV startups. Why? very simple: the chance of hitting the jackpot is significantly higher in SV.
> You realize not all job markets have developer jobs paying 400k?
For sure, but why would I joined non-SV startups getting paid peanuts while I can join a more established company and get paid double (base, stock, bonus, health benefit).
I felt that First Engineer is a sucker if you don't get compensated well enough (be it way more equity than the typical 0.5-1% or something else).
At the end of the day, I'd choose to maximise my career: be it joining a startup to gain experience knowing the whole stack or joining large enterprise for better career-path and compensation.
I don't join startups to "Change the World" or to "Hit the jackpot with 0.5-1% equity".
Then you have to remember that FAANG companies are large enterprises, by definition, and that comes with a lot of overhead - design by committee, politicking between middle-management fiefdoms, not being a part of the conversation when irrefutable directives are issued by executives four levels above you, varying levels of paperwork and documentation that are necessary in large organizations. That's soul-sucking for a lot of people, and those people will exclude themselves from FAANG-level compensation, and are on the market for (market minus FAANG)-rate compensation.
The real reason why a lot of founders can't hire at market rate compensation is that any early employee, even if you're paying them market rate, needs to buy into your vision just as much as you do. The upside for early employees, even more than potential compensation, is in being a strong influence, including at relatively senior levels, as the company grows. If, as an IC, you find yourself being recruited by somebody who you think is a strong and experienced leader, selling a product that you personally think is important, then you grab the bull by the horns and get on. If somebody who rambles and can't make eye contact asks you to join to build out Uber-for-pidgeons, it doesn't really matter how much compensation is being offered; you're going to walk away.
What happen is that these people will keep trying until they get in. They will focus only in one thing and one thing only: FAANG.
> That's soul-sucking for a lot of people, and those people will exclude themselves from FAANG-level compensation, and are on the market for (market minus FAANG)-rate compensation.
I find things have changed a lot where housing dictates personal career choices lately. It sucks to not be able to buy your own property. I don't care what people strategy is (be it work 4-5 years for FAANG and move midwest or whatnot).
So that they care about the company on a similar level to the founders, and feel a real sense of ownership, dedication, and responsibility.
I've been in a position several times now where at work I'll have a reputation as a very capable engineer, typically placed on or leading the most critical projects etc. —but, my employers still have no idea what my contribution could have been if I were made to feel like the company was partially my project too, and that there wasn't some massive (though never explicit) social divide between the founders and everyone else, the rest of us being mere tools for the founders' use (only one job I was at really gave that impression—the others were pretty good about creating an environment where everyone felt equal. But from speaking with many other prospects, it appears to be a typical attitude).
There are thresholds in perception of ownership which when crossed give access to new categories of behavior in the perceiver. Think about 1%, 5%, and 10% equity in terms of sharing an object among a corresponding number of people: how much do you feel that thing is yours when sharing it with 100 people? With 20 people? With 10 people?
For me, 10% is about where the line would be where I'd be willing to drop side projects etc. and seriously dedicate myself to the company. (And in my experience, this is not atypical: in the very early stage startup I was in, basically everyone was laying groundwork for their own startups on the side, or at least had other projects they were more interested in—but they'd make sad, fake displays of their dedication to the company to try and cover. At our largest there were still only ~7 people in the company.)
I solved it by becoming a product manager. I miss engineering, but I no longer have that angst on a daily basis. I have found PMming is a job where sense of ownership + willingness to work to further overall success of the given project is heavily rewarded. And the precision of thought that is a pre-requesite for engineering can equally be applied to PMming (though not all PMs have it!).
Because this is how you get good people. If you want to offer them what they could get by working someplace else, they may as well work someplace else (likely without the hours, stress, or potential instability of a startup).
Startups offer a lot of non-financial benefits over working at the big established companies.
1) Looser culture. Less likely to have a dress code or an attendance policy.
2) Less meetings, more coding. For someone that wants to get stuff done, way more to do in a startup.
3) Sense of purpose. A huge part of life satisfaction is doing something that actually matters. WAY easier to do this when you are shipping a product to actual customers vs sitting between 6 layers of management at google writing code to improve ad conversion by 0.1%
My bank doesn't accept "sense of purpose" as payment. My real job is for my mortgage and retirement.
An extra $10k+ per year counts a lot when compounded. $10k a year for 30 years, 7% average long term stock market return gets you $1 million.
That could a better life style, retire many years earlier...all without the risk of a Scrappy startup hoping for a unicorn buyout.
Play with the numbers...but that's what you are giving up because you want to wear a graphic t-shirt to work.
Truly, and it's changed my life for the better.
I'm unclear, however, on the relevance of this statement to the extant startup scene -- ref: the latest YC class, for example.
Neither of those things are much of an indicator of a good #1 engineer hire—yeah you want an above average engineer, but you don't want someone who is dependent on world-class tooling, world-class colleagues, or is so focused on tech that they can't see the forest for the trees of the business landscape they are in.
You need a solid engineer who is a hustler, willing to dive deep into whatever area is necessary, but doesn't fetishize some aspect of technology or become obsessed with implementing something in-house because it's an interesting technical problem. Current hiring practices are largely cargo-culted off of successful tech giants who face very different problems from what the average startup does.
If you find someone who gets it and has the skills to back it up then they deserve to be brought in with both a real salary and real equity because at this stage every hire is still life and death for the company. The challenge is whether you can recognize this person.
I'd say the reason you want a strong equity package is a question of alignment and incentive, though. Ideally this person is going to be a VP of Engineering for you someday if you scale up and on top of that needs to have architect + SRE + hacker + sysadmin skills. On top of that, you'll probably want them to make similar sacrifices that you (as the founder) are making to get the business off the ground. It shouldn't be founder equity, and maybe the standard 4 yr + cliff structure isn't right for it, but you probably want this person to have a substantial vested interest in the success of the company.
If you offer tiny or no equity, they have no incentive to align for growth. Also, founders are usually way less useful than the people they hire.
I am assuming that you won't sell goods and services you produce at cost price. If that is case, you'd have worked as an employee of that buyer. Similarly, if I don't get a share of the value I produce, I won't join any startup as a early employee.
Because they’re taking on a gigantic risk too?
In most other major American cities outside of New York/DC area its about $140K. If you compare the cost of living in any of those cities, it starts looking a lot worse for Silicon Valley.
https://qz.com/906086/san-francisco-is-actually-one-of-the-w...
If you go the billable consultant route with the right skill set, you can get up to $200K
https://www.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=e67229f7e25ea37b
Yes this is a realistic range. I’ve been given firm offers to do that type of work (AWS not Google) but the travel requirements would be too disruptive right now.
But the idea that software developers can't do well in other lower cost cities without working for a FANG or even companies that most people have never heard of is another example of the SV/HN bubble.