[dvt]

Interviewed with Snapchat about 3-4 years ago (sub-100 employees). Did not get an offer, but their interview process was pretty standard and professional. They were giving out 0.001% equity at the time. I'd say it would come out to 250k-500k, but it's very hard to extrapolate.

They were already a mega hit with like 10 employees so I doubt anyone that hasn't been there super early (like first 5 employees) will become a millionaire off this IPO.

[econner]

This just can't be right.

In fact, Snap's extreme generosity to employees has already swelled the existing share count. In 2016, it awarded 105 million new restricted share units (RSUs). All of those units, plus around 80 million awarded in previous years, will vest with the IPO. Those grants will represent one in six of Snap's shares. At $16 a share–the estimated high end for the price paid by the underwriters–those grants will enrich its 1,859 employees by $2.9 billion, averaging $1.5 million per person, although the rewards are, as usual, heavily skewed towards the top brass. And that's just a taste of what's coming.

http://fortune.com/2017/02/22/snap-ipo-dilution/

[vecter]

Given they were giving out 0.02-0.07% in 2014, it seems you're off by at least an order of magnitude if not more: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/139607.

[dvt]

If those leaks are accurate, I stand corrected. They were advertising 0.001% on Angel.co (when they approached me). See: https://www.quora.com/Is-Snapchat-really-offering-just-0-001...

[khazhou]

Assuming the founders held 30%, the employee equity was 1/30,000th that of founders. I don't understand how engineers are ok with their boss getting 30,000X their compensation.

[stanmancan]

Because the engineer doesn't assume any risk assuming they're being paid market salary? The engineer can stop working when they clock out? The engineer doesn't have their own awesome idea? Or they don't have the desire to run their own company?

[khazhou]

There's certainly some types of startups where the risk rationale does apply. For example, the founders who went with zero pay for two years and got an early working version and happy customers before hiring their first employee. Yeah, those founders can justify their big percentage.

But the Silicon Valley mold is: a couple of guys quit their jobs, hit up VCs for a month or two with the roughest sketch of an idea, get funded, and hire their first employee a couple of weeks later. That employee gets maybe 1% maximum, or the order of 1/50th or less of what the founders. Meanwhile, the engineer will bust his ass, show up at work every day and code some more at night, debug on weekends, etc. "We're all in this together, team!"

Then on the happy day years later, the founders start pricing out their MacLarens, while the engineers blink "WTF" at their actual payout.

[dvt]

First, equity isn't compensation, it's ownership. Second, it's about risk. Third, it's about luck.

So, if you get paid a market salary and benefits, you can't really expect to own much of the company that's providing you with that salary and benefits as it's essentially burning money on you. If you came in and said "can I get 1% ownership if I take 15k a year with no benefits" that would be a different story, but that's not how this works.

[was_boring]

I don't know about years prior, but Snapchat's executive team is making over a million a year. Not much risk at this point.

[dvt]

My comment was in the context of engineering (as that's what I interviewed for). Executive-level positions are a lot more nuanced.

[codeisawesome]

Could you expand upon the nuances?

[khazhou]

If you go in to a startup and say "I'll take 15K a year w/no benefits" you'll get a flat-out NO. That big exit-event equity is not for engineers. It's for founders.

[vecter]

That depends entirely on the stage of the company. If you're one of the first few employees, that would make complete sense.

If the last priced round made that 1% worth $20M on paper, then that's unreasonable.

[econner]

Yea, I can't see it being this low either.