The author seems to be a good writer but it getting old hearing people wax poetic about their opinions on the valley - anyone got facts to support anything?
72 karma · joined February 25, 2020
Of course - as they were. My point was on cash money comp. Never said they worked for free hence their title of technical cofounder which implies equity.
"...and actually be effective at it is extremely rare. What you'll usually find is someone at the beginning of their career that doesn't really understand what they are getting into."
The onus is on the founding team to be sufficiently compelling to attract such a rare breed and if they execute correctly there is no short end to the stick to be had.
Also, the individual in reference wasn't the of the gender you're assuming.
My last company had a technical cofounder who by all means was highly sought after and managed a team of 15-20 other developers in their primary dev consulting company meaning not only did they rock technically but also had biz acumen.
That individual worked FOR FREE for 3 years 25 hrs/week before collecting any money.
Don't ever think you have to pay a developer some market salary (or any salary) upfront. If the idea + company + team is legit, they will jump at the chance to be involved.
Debt will creep up and crush you eventually, do not go into debt to "fund" your startup.
Saying someone "needs" something (ie paid PR) in order to succeed could also be deemed terrible advice.
There are many founders of various social identities who are not rich yet have managed to succeed with bootstrapping or small seed/accelerator investments because they are capable.
To assert that some people are inherently advantaged or disadvantaged as founders and/or entrepreneurs based on such factors as race and gender is the definition of prejudice.
Not enough entrepreneurs/founders are able to have such a pragmatic and mature dialogue up front about the pros and cons. It's imperative that they do for the sake of their time and emotional well being - at the least. Kudos to you for going through it and making a decision which suits your needs.
You've said: "Setting goals like working at a certain company, promotions (up to positions like CTO) and building a specific type of thing aren't less ambitious than building a successful startup." ... and I would ask you to elaborate on that, like is there anything more "ambitious" than building successful startup or how do you perceive the scale of ambition in the context of say business/professional pursuits?
PS - I didn't know that hey.com was considered a "huge, groundbreaking" product...certainly captured some hearts and minds of the early adopter meets anti apple/establishment crowd but is it (yet) recognized outside of that bubble?
This approach/reasoning is too often overlooked. Smart and capable people get to pick and choose where they want to live.
There's a massive gap between wanting something and doing what it takes to get it. If you were to ask people vs. watch what they do, you'll see the truth; it's never about what people say but instead what they do.
And I'd welcome any supporting research demonstrating that, based off their actions, "most people want to do more than just get by" as stated. My anecdotal observation is that most of (working age) society actually does just enough to get by for today, this week, or maybe the month...
There exists an incredible amount of arrogance and ego among them by-in-large. The best are humble and curious while maintaining clear and direct communication. To be fair, they are often tasked with making important judgement calls sans complete information, though that's the fault of the leadership/culture as to a poor approach.
Why not? If the position isn't a fit for either side after X time on-the-job, that's OK right?
In the event that they did/do accept said money they did not earn, and that money was applied effectively and literally saved their asses in an emergency that they were not properly prepared for - they would never forget it and do whatever it took to repay this money that saved their life because they are grateful.
These examples do exist, I know personally know of some and maybe you do too...or not? But that's what I am getting at: everyone has different morals and values. Further, it's helpful to know what those are (when manifested into the form of a corporation) because then we get to make informed choices about who want to work for and with based on value systems. We vote every day with our feet, our dollars, and our attention.
Would I rather work for an employer who did what it took to navigate the Covid shitstorm on their own dime or the one who needed a lifeline and didn't even have the decency to pay back what was never theirs to begin with? Obviously.
Why do you think people are so interested in this data set? Many are acting on this intel in more ways than you think!
Yes and ?
Edit to add: further down the list I am seeing tech co's that actually laid off large % of employees that received millions still.
They probably were not counting on this information becoming public (though it obviously is/should be by default)...any respect I may have had for them is no more. Disgusting behavior.
I think this is the key...using the YT up/until you no longer can and then (presumably once an audience is present) reverting to your backups/hosting and going 'indy'.
I know of a couple tech ventures that did exactly this...they (1) had established a minimum viable audience and then (2) queried their people for what they wanted and how much they would pay for it, and (3) developed technology that delivered above and beyond functionality at (4) less cost than people expected which resulted in (5) a lot of pre-orders that (6) they delivered on which (7) that was the genesis of how they raised $VC to scale rather quickly.