Hacker News Reader

The problem with most of these "rockstar programmers" is that they think their skills deserve to trade at a ridiculous level relative to planning, negotiation and people management skills. Marketing and negotiation skills, to them, makes you a JAMBA (Just A MBA) but not "founder material". It's the chess-club mentality. I'll admit that there's room for negotiation in an exchange rate (I'd prefer pure meritocracy, but sadly that's not how the world actually works) between skills, connections and talent, but the people who think their technical skills and talent entitle them to a ridiculous share of the profits are just exhausting to deal with and, in my experience, most of them aren't nearly as skilled as they claim to be. If you're so technically skilled, then why haven't you started your own company yet with your very own MVP?

If you honestly believe that your programming skills merit 10+ times the share that my connections and skills do, then you better prove it by getting me a decent MVP with new releases on a weekly basis (and then, after a year or two, unless you understand that companies grow after finding the right business model and change yourself, I will have to make you stop running the show).

Stop making generalizations, they don't work. You look like you had a bad experience, that happens, we all do, just don't make the generalization that every business guy is like that, that's a fallacy.

There are some great business people out there, don't get me wrong. You just need to be very cautious if you don't already know the people. And yes, those skills (negotiation, marketing, management) are extremely important. But there are a lot of business with mediocre skill using "connections" to justify their disproportionate split.

I've never heard of an engineer getting 90% of the equity (prior to future dilutions) while the well-connected MBA gets 10%, but the reverse isn't uncommon.

Unfortunately your attitude is the reason why most startups fail to get off the ground.

If you are going to start a company with someone you shouldn't even take a step unless you feel like this person could be your brother or sister. That means you have to be honest with each other about your weaknesses and strengths and accept them for what they are.

You should also have partnership agreements that allow you to buy the other one out if they are not pulling their weight.

From what you have written you are going to discount anyone that is non-technical but worse, you will constantly focus on what other team members are delivering to earn a seat at your table. It only takes on person on the team like that to ruin the whole thing.

I think you're mischaracterizing what I'm saying.

There are a lot of "entrepreneurs" out there who have mediocre ideas, mediocre skill at the parts of business that actually matter (such as negotiation, marketing, and leadership), and minimal technical knowledge, but who justify disproportionate equity and authority splits based on "connections".

It can be an attractive proposition, when you're just starting out, to work for them. It's hard to tell a mediocre idea from a good one (Twitter seems mediocre on paper, but it worked) but connections obviously matter. If someone's genuinely well-connected, he'll be funded no matter what the idea is.

My advice is: don't work for them. If they were legitimately well-connected, they wouldn't need you to work for them on a low or zero salary.

Perhaps one should value the business idea and whether or not its sustainable over the possibility to raise money?

The number of people in the world who are "well-connected" enough to be funded regardless of the idea are smaller than you think.

The number of people in the world who are "well-connected" enough to be funded regardless of the idea are smaller than you think.

It would seem this way, but if you ever try to rent (much less buy) a place in the Bay Area or New York, you learn that there are a lot of rich fuckers kicking around.

Look at it this way: A good "business guy" is going to be a shrewd negotiator, using every trick in the book to maximize the value of your company in every deal. S/he will go to great lengths to make your company look bigger, more capable, and like an excellent fit in every introduction, meeting, and potential sale.

However, every one of those negotiating skills is going to also be put to use when negotiating salary and equity split with your company. It's a double-edged sword.

I don't buy into the notion that business-minded people undervalue engineering talent in general. Sure, there are plenty of anecdotes otherwise, but the savvy business people know exactly what engineering talent is worth. However, that doesn't mean they won't still try to maximize their own share of the company's equity and payroll. Meanwhile, they have every incentive to minimize the amount of equity and salary handed out to engineering talent so they can hire as many people as possible without spending a dollar more than necessary.

It's not personal, it's just business. I'm not suggesting it's right, of course. Learning good negotiation skills and how to sell yourself well will go a long way to leveling the playing field.

As a programmer, I've also dealt with the programmer ninja rockstar gurus who think anything less than 90% equity for building on top of someone else's platform is a personal insult to them.

There are just as many jerks with over-inflated egos on the programming side as there are on the business side.

  most of these "business guys"

who are you talking about? this is a gross generalization.

I guess anyone who can't write code but earns more than a programmer ;-)

watch out for those 'pure meritocracies' when the founders are less than trustworthy and a year of 60+ hour weeks is simply expected and not rewarded.

aka: I wish I had just freelanced. Live and learn