Hacker News Reader

This wasn't in any of those, though.

This was in something you were asked to sign when exiting the company, and I can very much imagine that it was something HR or legal thought was a good idea to add in a kind of "better safe than sorry" way, and that the CEO wasn't aware of.

I'm not saying it's necessarily true -- but I do think it falls in the realm of believability.

View on HN

The setup for this - the clause saying that if you didn't sign an exit agreement within sixty days the company would reclaim your equity - was in the equity plan and grant documents: https://x.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1791584341669396560

Not a lawyer, but "general release of claims" seems like a term of art which I would expect to be a something that would waive your right to sue, and not an agreement that includes a non-disparagement clause.

Anything that involves repurchase should be reviewed by the CEO and lawyers, since ownership is a board level matter.

It wouldn't actually involve any repurchase from what I understand, because these aren't even actual shares (RSU's) to begin with. They're not actual ownership at all. They're some kind of special sharing-of-future-profits agreement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com