zlacker

[return to "OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?"]
1. olliej+9y[view] [source] 2024-05-17 23:44:29
>>fnbr+(OP)
As I say over and over again: equity compensation from a non-publicly traded company should not be accepted as a surrogate for below market compensation. If a startup wants to provide compensation to employees via equity, then those employees should have first right to convert equity to cash in funding rounds or sale, there shares must be the same class as any other investor, because the idea that an “early employee” is not an investor making a much more significant investment than any VC is BS.

I feel that this particular case is just another reminder of that, and now would make me require a preemptory “no equity clawbacks” clause in any contract.

◧◩
2. DesiLu+5F[view] [source] 2024-05-18 01:00:12
>>olliej+9y
I always say in that the biggest swindle in the world is that in the great 'labor vs capital' fight, capital has convinced labor that its interests are secondary to capital's. this so much truer in the modern fiat-fractional reserve banking world where any development is rate-limited by either energy or people.
◧◩◪
3. DesiLu+Q11[view] [source] 2024-05-18 07:23:50
>>DesiLu+5F
why downvote me instead of actually refuting my point?
◧◩◪◨
4. olliej+hV7[view] [source] 2024-05-21 02:58:42
>>DesiLu+Q11
HN is filled with startup bros (who want to screw the actual employees), VC adjacent brow (who want to screw the startup bros), and people who signed up for massively discounted compensation in the form of “equity” that cannot be converted into cash and can be stolen and/or devalued by the people running the business, and so acknowledging this means acknowledging the folly.

Working for a startup is inherently risky, but it’s not gambling because in gambling you can estimate the odds, and unlike gambling the odds cannot be changed after you win. Any employment contract that does not allow equity cash out at the price from the last funding round, or allows take backs, is worse than gambling, and founders that believe contracts that don’t provide those guarantees are reasonable are likely malicious and intending on doing that in future.

I do not understand a mentality that says “as a founder I should be able to get money out of the business but the people who work for me, who are also taking significant risk and below market compensation should not be permitted to do that”

[go to top]