Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

The other word for "equity-only job" is "founder".

not with the requirements they are asking, which tells you that the equity stake will be some measly amount

    * Have at least 1 year of experience with Ruby / Rails.
    * Have experience with MySQL and JavaScript
    * Enjoy working in a startup environment

Oh. The other title they might be looking for is "sucker".

:-/ Insults aren't appreciated when I'm posting a question about how to make sure we're offering value to people. Unless this became digg when I wasn't looking, and insults are cool as long as they're funny?

Ironic, because the very low bar for qualified applicants to be your "lead developer" screams that you're looking for a code monkey to take advantage of, which most people on here probably find insulting.

My constructive advice on how to offer value to someone you bring on as a key developer is, pay them.

What's the range of equity you were thinking of offering this person?

I agree with the concept that you can not get an intelligent engineer to work for equity only with out become a founding member. However, I disagree with the notion that it is simply because of the lack of a fancy title. It is because of the level of sacrifice one has to make. Ones livelihood becomes intrinsically tied to the success of the company. Additionally the work load would be somewhat equivalent to the other founding members. Any reasonable person then would conclude that they should reap the same rewards as the other members.

However, I disagree with the notion that it is simply because of the lack of a fancy title.

It's nothing to do with the title. It's to do with the level of equity involved. Someone with 2% equity is a sucker. Someone with 30% equity (in a 3-people start-up) is a founder.

If you're looking to hire someone who has the ability to pull a whole start-up out of their ass (through their competence and extremely hard work), then it means they could just as well work on their own start-up (where they'd have 100% equity). So why should they join you, unless you're offering a significant portion of ownership and you add value to that start-up equivalent to your share ownership?

You want to offer value? Pay your fucking employees.

The requirements aren't an indication of equity, at all. We're looking for someone who's skilled, not necessarily experienced. Room to grow and a chance to prove yourself is one of the opportunities a startup offers, after all.

We're looking for someone who's skilled, not necessarily experienced.

Are you sure you have the ability to differentiate between the two?

On the whole, I'm pretty skeptical of startups that have no revenue or funding and are looking for an equity-only lead developer. It sounds like a bunch of non-technical people trying to get a code monkey for a few percent. Hopefully I'm wrong.

If the guy is going to be your technology lead, and he's a founder, then he's clearly your cofounder CTO.

You might want to read this article I wrote on the subject of technology recruitment in early start-ups.

http://inter-sections.net/2008/09/03/technology-recruitment-...

If you don't have anyone on your current founder team capable of building the product, you don't have a start-up yet. This guy, if/when you find him, will change that. I suggest equal equity with you.

For a person who can walk in the door as a key developer, there are plenty of paying projects that can make the same promises...

Prove themselves to who? Without either another technical person play off of or a cofounder/business-guy/whathaveyou that is able to recognize contribution and not treat technical resources as replaceable cogs.

Recognition by someone skilled or experienced or has background in the art is much more valuable than recognition by someone who is or has not. In my experience, I've proven myself to non-technical people who were peers with me at the time (we worked under the same blowhard), and that afforded a certain kind of respect that wouldn't come from having to prove yourself to a superordinate.

Bringing in someone who doesn't have years of experience is going to bite you later on. (I say this from experience: I was co-founder of a tech company in '99 and I simply didn't have the experience to build the foundation cleanly.)

These folks can come in with half-cocked knowledge and leave you with a trail of misery later on.

Leave the opportunity for hired guns the lead brings in. The lead needs to be experienced.

The requirements don't, however, say that growing and proving one's self will result in increased equity. In programming, usually you have a first job where you grow and prove yourself, and then go get a job for a significantly increased income.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com