Ask HN: Am I getting hosed by a CEO?
I've gone back recently to try to change the equity share I get, as I understand that most founders on board when I was typically receive anywhere from 10 to 30%. The CEO tells me that I'm the only one with any kind of agreement, and that makes me far better off (?!). Apparently, no one else has anything in writing. When I ask the CEO about this, he not only seems to hint that people will be very tied to the company (executives will have a 6 year vesting schedule...what?), but he seems to think that if anyone gets any equity now, it will turn off investors. He wants to maintain majority control in the company so no investors can come along and "steal" it from him, AND he wants to set aside a monstrous chunk of equity for these investors. He hints that employees will get some "down the road", but that this is an effective way to get investment. He tells me I'm too "9 to 5" security focused (which, honestly, I do tend to be. I'm working at a full time "real" job while doing this near full time).
He keeps telling me that I need to trust him and that he'll reward people down the road based on their performance.
I'm all for tying incentives to actual performance, but this is just so loosely defined.
Am I being overly rigid not trusting this guy while proving my worth? The more I read, the more it seems this is a bogus deal. Is there any merit to this idea that having employees with equity will turn off investors?
Does this make any kind of sense, or am I completely a chump?
Thanks
18 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 24.4 ms ] threadStop hanging out with this loser, build up your technical skills so you have a track record of projects built from scratch that you can show people, and then partner with someone who'll actually value you like a partner.
3% though? Not in bounds. If you're the technical guy there on day one and you don't receive a market salary or reasonable facsimile thereof every two weeks, you're a technical co-founder whether you want to be or not. Your deal is exploitative. You will likely not successfully negotiate a non-exploitative deal. (Presumption should be 33%, not 30%, and very definitely not 10%. No difference between the cofounders is meaningful as T approaches 5 years from now; if there is a meaningful difference, that person probably shouldn't be a co-founder.)
Everyone in this conversation is a businessman. They've underbid for your services. I strongly advise turning in your two week's notice and washing your hands of this. Your equity, whether or not you've actually been issued it, is equity in a company run by operators who are not dealing fairly with their technical co-founder and who are either comfortable with lying or clueless. No fact which I've just recited would cause me to think "This equity is worth more than typical startup equity", which is worth nothing.
>> He tells me I'm too "9 to 5" security focused
This is a common line. It is just that: a line. It gets cynically deployed against engineers on a regular basis by people who are not willing or able to pay market wages. You should interpret this line as nothing other than "I am unwilling or unable to pay market wages" and act accordingly.
>> He keeps telling me that I need to trust him and that he'll reward people down the road based on their performance.
99% of the people told variants of this line will be screwed by the people offering this term. As a direct consequence, entrepreneurs who are presently cash-poor but who want to incentivize employees/partners/etc do not say this; they say variants of "Here's a third of the company" or "I will commit to consequential cash payments in writing contingent on us achieving milestones together."
"I will pay you a number amenable to me, at a time of my choosing, if and only if I feel like paying you" is not an offer.
I will close with the observation that now is among the best times in the history of ever to be an engineer capable of shipping projects. You have better options. Exploring them for two weeks ROFLstomps the value of continuing to work for this company.
It's human nature to trust people, until proven otherwise.
Your CEO might even have magnetic charm on par with Richard Branson or Steve Jobs. Their gift for words hit the right buttons. Who wouldn't want to go into partnership with those guys? Time reveals if they actually make good and deliver.
We should all think in terms of highest & best use of our time. Relative to proving your worth-- imagine what this position might have yielded had you been paid at contractor rates. You've invested your time in the CEO. Has he proven his worth back to you?
Update: yesterday, CEO tells me he will offer the guy who started 2 weeks ago the same equity I have, because he's done "such a good job". He has been kicking it hard, it's true, and he does really well, but he's fresh, and the CEO's perspective is so skewed based on what's bright and shiny in front of him at the moment that he totally disregards the contribution of people working for him 7 months for free who got him to where he's at now.
The sad part is I think he knows this damn well, and his strategy well may be to operate a company on a string of trusting people who he will continue to cycle in as the disenchanted ones before them leave.
In that previous CEO role, as I understand it, he left on bad terms over some kind of compensation disagreement (ironic?).
A red flag in the beginning was that one of our engineers still runs an authorized service center for that former company's returns. Yet, when the CEO started our company, one of the first things he went about trying to do was to smear the last company in the press (which would have been technically hurting part of the business of the engineer I mentioned, who still made income servicing that company's products). The guy just doesn't think about other people, yet he's good at bringing in the dollars.
I think people are seeing the sales and letting that put off their concerns (if they have them) about whether they will be compensated and when. I have to be honest - I have seen him get us out of some sticky situations by pivoting at the last minute. He used his industry experience to do that, which also contributed to the ability to even do that. It gives him a perception of knowing way more than anyone else, and so they are inclined to trust him when he says this compensation strategy will be acceptable. With this experience, he has an aura of wisdom that makes people feel almost foolish for broaching the subject of pay (I know, I've tried it).
What's doubly ironic is that he insists on air-tight contracts with suppliers and customers, and mentions it being okay to "bend them over" once in a while, since we're paying them and they're locked in. Yet, for an employee, I had to fight tooth and nail just to get the lame contract I have with him for pay.
Good luck.
Good luck, I hope everything works out.
I heard, and believed, that for years. I got nothing.
Here's to hoping what ever decision you make works out.