It is rude to lie to people about the value of their options to hire them. ("Your options are 0.866% of the company"). But to try to defend that practice in public is just hilarious.
Heh, at least now we know what it does take to be a cofounder :)
> It is rude to lie to people about the value of their options to hire them. ("Your options are 0.866% of the company"). But to try to defend that practice in public is just hilarious.
I never once stated that one should lie to employees about the value of their options. Those conversations are always highly specific to the situation, the negotiated contract with the person, and how fluid the actual current "valuation" is. It's very difficult to pin-point a true value for a set of options in a private company - sometimes you can come close, particularly once major funding events and milestones have been hit, but it is still difficult. I usually do my best to have a candid conversation with prospectives or currents about that value. A lot of founders do.
If all you care about is the financial upside in joining a startup, then I will always say that you should not join one. The risk is very high and it takes an enormous amount of cooperative collaboration from numerous people that are willing to be "in it together" - it also takes many years before you have something valuable enough to make those early options worth it. If you get in before the Series A and you really give it your all and it's a good product that people want and you're surrounded by peers who are the top of their game and you've got excellent leadership: Hang on because it will be a rocket ride. If not, then it might not be worth it.
The other reasons to join a small startup are numerous. In the early stages it's mostly intangible and the later stages are usually very tangible. The "option" for a financial upside is there and should factor into how much risk you're taking as an early employee, but unless that is all you care about then it should not be the only factor in your censure of an organization.
Figure out what's important to you and act accordingly.
> Heh, at least now we know what it does take to be a cofounder :)
Become one. You'll find out. I've been unable to accurately convey it to people it seems; most think it's glamorous. It is not. Most think they're entitled to it. They most likely are not. Most think founders have the upper-hand. Very few ever do (hint: the board and the investors control the strings more than most think).
Upper hand, n: having better knowledge, information, or otherwise situation than the rest. Compared to the employees founders most definitely do. Eg: how many startups will give you the answers to the listed questions easily? Founders have them.
I am not saying founders are above all, but they definitely have the upper hand when compared to those pesky employees who want to know the value of monopoly money they are claimed to be paid with.
It's also on you to be clear about what you want and to vet orgs and people. If an org will not share sensitive information with you in order to make a sound decision, then I certainly would not join it. If the leadership won't go to bat for their own people or honor their word, I will not work for them.
It is. If i wanted to change the world, I'd join the red cross. Attempting to make someone feel bad for only caring about pay, as a way to get them to work for worthless options only works on some people. :)