| ▲ | georgeburdell 18 hours ago |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | saghm 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's not like larger companies don't also screw over their employees in various ways. After having to leave AWS due to my fully distributed team that was formed during WFH being forced to "return" to an office that most of ever never lived near, I've preferred working for smaller companies not because I care about equity (I'm in the fortunate position that I can survive comfortably and save for retirement on my salary rather than needing to rely on the value from options/RSUs), but because my confidence in my ability to predict where things are headed goes down increasingly with each additional level of management between me and whoever has the power to arbitrarily decide to upend my employment on a whim. In the long run, I'll probably be fine if my employer doesn't make me rich, so as long as my projected retirement age isn't actively getting pushed back based on my current income and spending, I'd rather optimize for minimizing the likelihood I suddenly find myself unemployed due to untenable working conditions or getting unexpectedly laid off. My experience at startups has been that it's a lot easier to tell when things might start to get dicey several months down the line and start to prepare for if I need to find another gig. With a large company, I've seen that happen much more suddenly for people who had no reason to suspect they might need to in advance. |
| |
| ▲ | Arainach 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | At larger companies I can sell my stock immediately, and the salary and benefits are better. | | |
| ▲ | saghm 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | My health insurance from AWS was about the same coverage/cost that I got from a startup I worked at that had 10 employees for a year or so afterwards, but the insurance from the startup had much better humans for me to talk to when there were issues. As for the extra money, my point was that I've found my quality of life is higher working for companies where I know where I stand in the medium-to-long term. 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | evilduck 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't think this makes it much worse because that's hard to do, it's already terrible. Getting screwed by startup founders has been the status quo for at least 15 or 20 years now. 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. |
|
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you join a startup, and have equity that isn’t special in some way (defending against liquidation preference or dilution), you’re the sucker. You’re just going to grind for someone else’s payday when a deal is made in a room you’re not in. You’ll only be made rich if someone with the power to drive the decision thinks you should be. As always, it’s who you know and being likable. |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’ve thought about this comment, and am replying to it to amend it (as the edit window has passed). I made this comment based on observations I’ve seen during this AI investment bubble and before it. Most times, common shareholders get the short end of the stick. But I will add, there are some “less than the majority” situations where I have seen employee shareholders treated with dignity and respect, and provided access to liquidity accordingly, and I would be remiss if I did not call that out. It will be challenging to know ahead of time, but there are decent people out there who won’t take advantage or use their power against you economically (imho). “Be lucky” is unfortunately not actionable. |
|
|
| ▲ | some_guy_nobel 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Right? As a former founder, I laugh every time I get a 'Founding Engineer' recruit email... |
|
| ▲ | jmward01 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is definitely time to stop looking at equity as part of pay at a startup. The trend is extremely clear, startups aren't paying out to employees but the C suite gets internal raises and IPO is pushed to infinity. It is nice to have some paper laying around but that is all it is, paper. Go to a startup for a year. Get the experience, move and get a 20-50% pay increase and keep doing that every year and you will be way happier and financially healthier. |
| |
| ▲ | tyre 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is always the case. Negotiate equity, but assume it’s worth zero. It’s not liquid and highly speculative. It’s a nice to have. 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. | | |
| ▲ | nerdsniper 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | If the owners try to say the equity is valuable, have them convert it to salary. Then it will be clear they don't believe their own words. |
| |
| ▲ | tbrownaw 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I thought this was always the case? Hearing about examples certainly isn't new. | | |
| ▲ | Analemma_ 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | It has always been the case, but each year there’s a fresh crop of new, bright-eyed 20-year-olds who haven’t learned it yet. The entire startup ecosystem essentially depends on the fact that some people haven’t yet internalized that options are worthless and working 80+-hour weeks if you’re employee #3 or higher never pays off, because even in the slim chance your company has a successful exit you’ll get fucked over by antics like this. 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. | | |
| ▲ | jmward01 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It hasn't actually always been the case and the real issue is the false advertising that you actually have equity. If my equity of 1% was real then I would get value as the company grew but the reality is that options/shares without some sort of exit is worth 0. Founders and the C suite often (always now?) get 'internal' raises meaning when a new round of funding hits they get to sell but nobody else does. This, to me, completely destroys the concept that equity is an incentive to build the company and means it should -never- be used as part of a hiring pitch since the people pitching it, founders and the upper management, obviously don't believe in it themselves. If you really want to see if the leadership believes in the junk they are telling you then ask them to put in writing that internal raises are available to all at the same percentages or they are available to nobody. | | |
| ▲ | imtringued 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Honestly the dilution thing never made much sense. It's penny pinching your most important employees. 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. |
| |
| ▲ | 999900000999 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Getting screwed over is a part of life. 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. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | paxys 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah unless you are a founder or top investor it’s pretty much a guarantee that there will be no exit. |
|
| ▲ | 999900000999 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you need a job for things like food and housing a startup is cool. 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. |
| |
| ▲ | nharada 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | In that case working at a startup would be a thing someone would only do as a last resort, and the talent pool would consequently be extremely low quality. Sounds damaging to the scene to me. | | |
| ▲ | 999900000999 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Have you seen the tech market? A lot of good engineers are out of work. They'll gladly take what they can |
|
|
|
| ▲ | neilv 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I was talking with a great-sounding few-person early startup (nice people, non-evil business, interesting work, etc.), and they wanted me to fill a highly-skilled role... in-office in a VHCOLA, for $110K and "0.5%" in usual option schedule. (Presumably also with the usual barriers to options ever being exercised or liquidated equitably.) 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. |
| |
| ▲ | neilv 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Absolutely, downvote down calls for founding engineers paid to get meaningful equity. 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | LogicFailsMe 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Oh FFS 0.1% of this acquisition is $20M. 0.5% is $100M. Junior to senior equity lies in this range. They'll be more than fine. They'll be 1%ers to 0.1%ers after taxes, yeesh. It's never ever enough. is it? |
| |
| ▲ | ricardobeat 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Those numbers are not realistic. At a company at this stage (series E I think?), you’ll be lucky to have 0.01% as an engineer. 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. | | |
| ▲ | LogicFailsMe 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Series E was just 3 months ago. $2M for 3 months work seems fantastic to me. Series B equity was anytime through early 2021. This is a fantastic outcome for everyone in Groq. 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. | | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why are you assuming the employees’ equity participates in this licensing deal at all? They just have ownership in the leftover dying company as far as I can tell. How will they make that worth something, and get liquidity? | | |
| ▲ | LogicFailsMe 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | And you don't think they'd be squealing like stuck pigs in the blogosphere if that were the case? There isn't even anything like that on Blind currently, but there sure are a lot of people with no skin in this deal whining about it to high heaven. This is not a winning attitude. $20B for Groq just normalized $1B for AI startups in general. Maybe less concern trolling here and more building something is in order? | | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | My assumption is employees are mostly out on holidays since the deal was known widely only on Christmas, and so they’re busy with their personal lives, quietly discussing this issue with trusted coworkers, and if there are serious problems, they are coordinating a lawsuit instead of saying something they shouldn’t in public. 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. | | |
| ▲ | LogicFailsMe an hour ago | parent [-] | | So your belief is that the FTC should not only have control over corporate acquisitions but also over where people work and what they can be paid, got it. We are all at will employees in tech and you and only you are responsible for where you choose to work. Most startups fail. This one didn't. Good on them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|