Hacker News Reader

Comment by Brian_K_White | Hacker News Reader

It's funny. I read the article and do not arrive at the same obvious/apparent conclusion the auther theirself does about Cassidy's position being reasonable, merely legal.

To me the reasonable thing to do is if you want to get out then get out, sell back your stake. If you want to stay in then stay in, work on the project full time or work out some new plan where all stakeholders agree to switch to day jobs and put this into hobby mode.

But if you just want to maintain a stake to collect rent, and demand cash that doesn't even exist, seriously F that guy. The only reason he's in the legal right to be this douchy is because they failed to write their 'pre-nup' properly, not because he's actually in the right and his position and expectations are reasonable.

View on HN

Keep in mind that the author is not neutral here: Since he's expressed his position against trans people, and by doing that parted ways with Danielle Foré before (who previously identified as Daniel Foré and participated in his youtube videos), and also you can see that it refuses to use the actual name for Danielle; it's not surprising that he wants to reach a conclusion against her.

What does the trans issue even have to do with a partnership dispute, on the shareholding structure of their arrangement? Why does everything have to be a gender issue?

It refers to prejudice on the part of the article author. And not just assumed/general prejudice of a class but of this person in particular as well.

Do you have a source for that?

Enlightening. Thank you.

When people buy stock in any company, they don't consider only the current value of the company as if it were to be liquidated today: they also consider future earnings, which they hope will increase the future value of their shares.

The same logic applies when selling.

If a co-founder sells back their stake, why should the current value of the company be the sole basis for pricing the sale? As with any other stock, owning shares represents a claim on a portion of the value created by the company's future earnings.

If someone is going to sell that claim, they are entitled to take that into account. That's not rent-seeking; it's compensation for giving up a claim on future earnings.

Of course, all of this assumes that Elementary OS has a bright future ahead of it as a business which will increase its earnings and value, which seems unlikely. The founders seem to be arguing over a company that is worth less than a new Camry. But still!

My guess is that he thinks that someone will buy the company when they become insolvent, and there's some cash to be made, but that he can't get it right now if the other founder isn't willing to sell.

Honestly - I have no idea if he's right, but I think the Pantheon DE is relatively pretty, and has some nice pieces. Combine with the fact that it's a fairly popular distro with new users... and I suspect there's at least a chance he's right (I'd still bet against it happening, though).

But for 23k... if I were in his shoes I'd probably also take that bet. I'd much rather have a chance at 100k (even if low odds) over 1.5 month's salary at the new gig.

You seem to imply that a founder is somehow different from any other employee in a company that holds shares. Founders (and others) ARE treated differently if it's written into a contract.

Think about the common bay area tech compensation: employees get stock options and grants. Think of this as a stock grant: why would you be forced to sell because you decide to leave the company?

Hi Cassidy, I think I expressed my point directly enough without any implication.

I share your opinion. The second demand from the lawyer sounds like me when FOMO makes me lose my touch. Not at all reasonable and lacking the warmth of humanity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com