[milesskorpen]

Because — and this is amazing — NO ONE at Toptal has equity other than the founder: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/at-booming-toptal-no...

I find this sort of bonkers. Basically they all have contracts saying they'll get equity at the next round ... and the company is profitable and the CEO has no intention to every raise another round. So he currently owns 100% of the company: "As a result, even though it looks like a typical venture capital funded company, all of Toptal’s stock is in the hands of one person, co-founder and CEO Taso Du Val. Even Du Val’s co-founder and colleague for eight years, [redacted], has no shares."

That said, I do wonder whether there's some bigger story in the background (since [redacted] is referred to as co-founder in the Information article, and is getting sued in the parent)

[jerf]

Maybe I'm just slow because this occurs to me hours later, but this One Man, One Stock Grant thing is a terrible idea; if the employees know about it, and they surely do now, they have incentive to try to drive the company in such a way that it needs to take capital to survive, so they get their payouts.

This is probably not the most stable foundation upon which to build a company.

[rosybox]

If you don't have equity, are you actually a co-founder?

[PopeDotNinja]

> Because — and this is amazing — NO ONE at Toptal has equity other than the founder

Most businesses have a fixed number is of equity owners, including service business like Toptal. In most businesses like that, if you get any equity at all, it'd be unusual that you could keep the equity if you leave the company.

[dpiers]

Except Toptal is a “startup” that took $1.5mm in seed funding from investors like Andreesen Horowitz and promised employees equity.