That isn’t a snarky position; early employees in high output orgs like this generally work just as much as founders do.

The founders aren’t really taking on that much more risk than the rest of the early team; it’s the VC’s money, not theirs.

I absolutely don’t agree with the idea that employees deserve the same upside as founders (because I think initiative and persistence against adversity/inertia is insanely rare and valuable and should be rewarded immensely), but it is not an insane proposition.

It’s especially popular among people who think the actual work output is more important than the leadership initiative. Both are obviously essential, and founders do both, while employees do only the first (or they’d be founders themselves).

▲

no_wizard 3 days ago | parent [-]

>rewarded immensely

Let’s define this. Let’s say 1:25? 1:50? What ratio is appropriate?

	▲	sneak 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		We don’t need to define it; employees define it by who they choose to work for given the equity granted to them by the founders. If they didn’t like the deal, they would become founders themselves, or choose a company that offers a better deal. It turns out that leadership drive and the compulsion to bring something new into existence from scratch is actually quite rare. Your figures seem to be roughly in line with what the employment market has settled on, although price discovery could be better (most employees don’t get to see the cap table during hiring negotiation, which, IMO, is wrong).