Hacker News Reader

Comment by ttymck | Hacker News Reader

Alternatively, don't join startups for the equity.

Even if you genuinely believe the person answering your questions genuinely believes the answers they are giving, there's perilously little evidence to suggest their answers will be binding or accurate.

4 years from now, anticipate something to the effect of: "I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further", this could come from the CEO, an investor or the acquirer. Anything more favorable should be considered a statistical miracle.

Joining a near-IPO company is something I can't speak to, but have a more optimistic view of. Furthermore, joining a public company with liquid equity is something I can personally say is well worth it.

Do not join startups for the equity.

View on HN

The IPO market is fickle. Someone who joined a “near-IPO company” last year may have been reasonably expecting a liquidity event within 12 months, but now finds the IPO indefinitely postponed and the company trying to raise additional funding in a downround that may halve the value of those illiquid shares.

Personally I’d take my chances either early, with a meaningful share of the company, or post-IPO when the amount of shares is much smaller but its value reasonably predictable.

Completely anecdotal, but has friends join Instacart and Stripe that are in this exact position.

My understanding is that companies like these have equity that is easily liquidated privately? No direct experience though, I could be wrong.

100% agree with this approach, proven to be a good one via personal experience.

This.

Equity is a lotto ticket, not an IOU.

If you join an established public company that offers RSUs, etc. thats different. Those can be traded for cash money, once vested. Getting your equity out of a startup before the IPO or public stage isn't as straightforward, or real.

Join startups because it's a thing you are so passionate about making, a thing that you think the world needs so badly that you are willing to make personal and professional sacrifices to bring it to reality. Join a startup because you love thr team, really want to work with them and really think that what your building is good for you, your community, the world.

The equity piece is just there so folks like us don't feel "Walter Whited" when our passion project makes a big impact, and the world rewards that impact with financial gains.

People can work for startups for whatever reason they want.

Equity will be worth something or not based on a variety of factors, the more in tune you are with those things the better.

It's not 'I'm gonna be rich' vs. 'Lottery ticket' - there are ways to understand it.

That said, I'd put a high risk premium on equity.

Thanks for this. It made me do some more digging.

From quick googling the odds of winning powerball is on the order of e-10, while unicorn startups of valuations above 1 billion have a success rate on the order of e-5.

Your comment is true, startup equity is more likely than a lotto ticket so it's not the best analogy.

https://nanoglobals.com/startup-failure-rate-myths-origin/

Yeah, if my equity is worth something I'll be thrilled, but for me the appeal of startups is autonomy and minimized corporate bullshit. I know that I'm taking a pay cut in exchange for those perks, and the deal is so worth it to me. Sanity > money.

>Do not join startups for the equity.

If you're not a founding member, what reasons does that leave?

Great coworkers, fun work environment with high velocity of innovation, decent enough pay, flexible work arrangements, preferred geography, belief in the mission.

I recently did a round of interviews specifically targeting series A and series B companies and this is a pretty accurate summary. Some interesting things that were offered to me:

- Unlimited nomading or work anywhere in the world for the same pay

- Extremely generous PTO (by USA standards)

- Quite generous WFH equipment stipends

You can get all of those things at a non-startup. Having worked at a handful of startups and non-startups, I am skeptical that a startup offers those things at above-average rate the justifies the downsides, which are, from my experience:

  * High pressure to work at all hours, because a startup is fragile
  * Extreme financial uncertainty
  * Many QoL concessions

If you're not accepting a generous equity package in exchange for ensuring that the startup thrives and succeeds, you're missing a huge opportunity for exchanging hard labor for potentially high return. It's like buying a lottery ticket without filling in the numbers.

> You can get all of those things at a non-startup.

I mean I've been trying super hard for the past 10 years and I haven't been able to find a workgroup at a large corporation that has a high velocity of execution and is actually innovating much. I'm personally taking a pay cut to go to a startup to hopefully find this.

I'd love to join Project Starline or similar truly innovative groups within large companies, but I don't have a degree from a top-10 school so startups are kind of my only way that I can find to get to an environment like that. Even with strong references from Staff Engineers at Google my resume just gets thrown out, haven't been able to secure even a first round interview with FAANG in over 5 years of trying. Maybe they're not interested in working with ex-oil industry engineers, or maybe my resume just really really sucks.

> you're missing a huge opportunity for exchanging hard labor for potentially high return. It's like buying a lottery ticket without filling in the numbers.

Sure, but my reasons didn't have "make more money" they had "decent-enough pay".

Also currently my preferred geography is Houston to stay with my incredible partner. Most of the large companies here have a lot people that I don't enjoy working with -- e.g. people who are outspokenly excited for an illegal immigrant to try to steal tools out of their shed at night so that they can legally kill them. So "great coworkers" is also a bit hard with "preferred geography" sometimes. Granted for a $250,000 role, we'd certainly pack up and move somewhere, but I haven't been able to get FAANG to even give me a first round interview!

The bottom line is that it's entirely possible that the best situation for me is to make almost the same money to work with what seems to be an incredible group of really, really, really smart people on some super cool technology. Yes it will be "more work", but with this should come more skill development. I don't have and am not planning on having kids, so I'm happy enough just going to pilates at 7am and working my ass off all day on something that I find personal reward in, and then doing my hobbies (sailing, beer brewing) on the weekends.

> my preferred geography is Houston to stay with my incredible partner.

The consideration that outweighs all the rest. Personal reasons are, well, personal.

If you want to do exciting tech in Houston, there is a really obvious employer. Pay isn't great but the intangibles are out of this world.

You know, I actually somewhat agree but the pace of innovation/execution at NASA is glacial.

> people who are outspokenly excited for an illegal immigrant to try to steal tools out of their shed at night so that they can legally kill them

If they do you can be a witness to their premeditation.

I mean, obviously. But also it's just their fantasy. The chance of it actually happening is absurdly low. The chance of me having to listen to daily rants about everything and just ignore them or go "uh huh." is 100%.

Yeah I meant in jest (they made something legal illegal by saying it is legal). They most likely would do nothing. The actual crime is spreading hate and making it uncomfortable to work.

Buy lottery tickets instead (“startup equity equivalent”) and work for established companies who can offer the same. Startup employees optimize for workism (“mission”, trying to obtain meaning from their work), let them, optimize for quality of life and comp instead (many larger orgs have embraced remote and even support global nomads if you structure employment arrangement and finances appropriately).

The usual reasons, compare it on everything else like any other job.

They may pay less but let you work without a gazillion meetings and no legacy or technical debt for example.

Or you might want to start your own startup so a way to make connections and learn how they work.

Man, I don't know... I joined a startup last year thinking that, but then found they were way more into process, Jira, estimation, etc. Plus a bunch of tech debt from the CTO's MVP and "don't touch it".

The less meetings you have the better run a company is, obviously depending on the type of meetings. Not enough meetings is another indicator of bad organisation. The start-up experience I have is an equal amount of pointless meetings compared with established companies. Only with a significant majority of participants treating it as a meeting with a purpose, something people at established companies know better.

Probably goes something like this: Big company uses process, JIRA, etc. People leave this and do a startup, and like tech stack they are not going to change it because it is a startup. So the process comes along with them. In some ways this makes sense because they know what they know and they think it has worked for them.

Software human process systems are self-reinforcing. Be it Scrum (de-facto Scrum, as it is commonly practiced), or whatever, they system is define in such a way that the system can never be questioned, so the system appears to be successful always.

If the project is late or full of tech debt, it is the people to blame, not the project management framework. In this sense these systems are almost invincible to scrutiny, only to be defeated if a new management team has a preferred system.

Words I have never heard in a retro: "should we even be doing 'agile' at all?"

To learn by observing the founding members, understanding the business model, the market, and eventually becoming a founding member of the next company.

Not something you can do on a full-time job of resolving Git conflicts at FAANG.

That works if the founders know what they are doing, otherwise well, not so much.

In my domain, Supply Chain Management, half of the tools Amazon is using daily can serve as carbon copies for start-up ideas. With the added benefit that you know they work at scale.

Not everyone is exactly mid-career?

Cash compensation.

I noted this in my comment above, pasted here again:

Equity is a lotto ticket, not an IOU.

The equity piece is just there so folks like us don't feel "Walter Whited" when our passion project makes a big impact, and the world rewards that impact with financial gains.

I agree with the lottery ticket analogy, and I also use it in another comment below. However, I think the other points that you (and others) mention can be satisfied at more stable companies. And in fact, those same points are also sometimes used by manipulative people to squeeze undervalued work out of undervalued starry-eyed early employees. Not saying you're doing that, just that they are co-opted by manipulative people.

In my opinion and experience, if the equity piece goes away, it is not worth it to work at a startup. It's also very likely that you'll pick up a lot of dysfunctional behaviors, depending on how (im)mature a startups employees are. You're better off getting experience at a more stable company.

100% if a person can satisfy those things in a more stable company that is absolutely what they should do. No doubt, and I'd say it over 100 times.

For those that can't find those things at a large established company, I would recommend tp others, and have chosen startupsyself at times in my career.

I second that.

Don't expect to get $1M if you own 0.1% of equity and the company is sold for $1B.

Highly likely you'll get nothing + laid off.

Negotiate for immediate benefits: cash bonus, salary, RSUs (if company is public), etc...

I don't think this is a very good take.

1) Startups may not give you the full picture, but it's very unlikely they are going to straight up 'lie' to you - that would be bad, and likely illegal.

2) Yes, almost anything can happen with equity, and when it gets shifty, bad things will happen so you have to have a reasonable take on it - which, admittedly is really hard for most people.

I think it's better to understand that there's going to be a lot of risk in equity, and it's not something you should bank on too hard.

I appreciate your response, and I know many share your perspective.

I want to clarify that I am not claiming all startups founders will _lie_ to you. What I am saying is that while their statements may be true now, it is highly unlikely what they tell you will remain true, and whether or not it does will likely be out of their control. Parallels can be seen in Oculus' infamous "guarantee" that they would not require Facebook integration. The deal will be altered, sooner or later.

It _is_ really hard for most people, because equity is confusing and exciting and sexy. I'll continue to expound a cynical approach because the other side is full of powerful, wealthy stakeholders who have a lot to gain from wide-eyed engineers being misinformed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com