This behavior is extremely damaging to the startup scene. Who would join a startup these days unless it’s run by a close friend or relative? At least in that case, the scorned junior employees would have social recourse.
I definitely don't have any illusions that this is based on a number of personal factors (e.g. my overall financial situation making any additional income not likely to drastically change my quality of life and the somewhat unorthodox medical needs of someone in my family causing me to need to talk to the insurance company a few times a year to sort things out). The comment at the beginning of this thread was asking " Who would join a startup these days?" though, so my answer is basically "someone like me". I don't pretend to have any idea how many others like me there are, only that the tradeoffs for larger companies don't really make much sense for me.
If you're just a worker then demand fair market wages, work healthy hours, and treat your useless class of shares as already used and discarded scratch off lottery tickets.
The best we can do is try and make “options have an EV of 0, startups aren’t worth it, join a FAANG” a widely-known meme in places like HN to keep as many people as possible from having to lean this the hard way. We’ll never save everyone, but at least it’s more widely-known than it used to be.
The problem imo is when you actively lie to me. I won't go into specifics, but I was lied to , said F em, went the legal route and got smacked down.
It's not even worth a name and shame. Just sip a shot of whiskey and try to move on. This is why I like contract jobs. Ain't no equity. It's much more honest.
If you don't want your employees holding shares, then tell them to sell their shares during the seed rounds where you will give them a chance to liquidate and renegotiate the shares allocation. Your employees now have a strong incentive to make it to the next seed round and the bigger the round the better.
The current system appears to be suboptimal for both parties. Employees receive options as replacement for a lower salary, but the founders don't actually want to give up control over the company. This means you now have the worst of both worlds. The employees know they will get shafted and value the options at zero, which kills the productivity incentive. The founders have given away options for nothing and now need to engineer a situation where the options are as valuable as the employees think they are.
Is FAANG even still hiring en masse? The sense I get is that FAANG hiring rates, especially for new grads, are very different pre- and post-ZIRP.
edit: which doesn’t mean join companies you don’t believe in! Please do. But don’t expect it to be there, don’t include it in life plans, don’t pay attention to valuations, etc.
I fully expect to be lied to repeatedly though about my own pay, our prospects, etc. I had to learn the hard way that these lies are defacto legal because employees won't realistically be able to sue.
But hey, the base pay is probably enough.
A lot of good engineers are out of work. They'll gladly take what they can
Even fresh grads with no experience take home more in this town.
I live to work, and I'd be willing to spend a few more years in student-apartment quality of life, and to work like a strategic asset to make the startup successful. But I've learned that deal should include a FIRE lottery ticket, not a condo downpayment lottery ticket.
If your early startup doesn't want to share significant equity, https://levels.fyi/ provides TC numbers of what established companies are paying, even for people who wouldn't be good for a startup.
Maybe it's the recent years of what VC culture has devolved to. ("Why is your cap table cutting in early key hires significantly? Do you have a leadership problem, bro?") Maybe this is just another facet of the "mask-off" or "late-stage capitalism" that people have started calling out in other facets of society.
We wouldn't want someone accepting a small fraction of their market salary to get even 1% pre-dilution of an early startup (even in dark-pattern options), because that might align them with company success, or even be fair.
Most importantly, there is no guarantee there will be any payout at all. It’s not an acquisition and we don’t know the terms.
What I'm reading here is 100% envy and resentment of their success. But that only works if you're already rich or president, preferably both for best results.
You should be asking why no one has dispelled the criticisms of how employee equity is treated in this deal - neither Nvidia nor Groq’s founders nor regular employees. Lots of people have raised this concern. Should be simple to answer, right?
As for people with no skin in this deal “whining” - why wouldn’t people raise concerns? It’s a disturbing trend. These are highly unusual deals made to circumvent the law and break norms, on antitrust and employee compensation. They’re suspicious and prior examples have stolen from employees. So distrust and scrutiny by default is completely justified.
https://www.teamblind.com/post/first-windsurf-now-groq-p8jey...
"all groq employees got cashed out, no one is getting screwed here. windsurf is different."
But wait, wait, don't tell me... How do we KNOW this REALLY is a groq EMPLOYEE? It COULD be a PAID shill blah blah blah WINDSURF! WINDSURF! You can't hide the TRUTH forever!