[try-perforate]

Isn't this capitalism? Labor and capital are two different factors of production. If you're willing to take the pay cut and risk associated w/ joining a startup, but are unhappy with the returns, why wouldn't you just keep your job, invest the $100,000, and get access to the preferential terms given to capital?

[ahelwer]

Good luck investing in private companies with $100k. The only way us serfs can get access to those opportunities is to chain our futures to the company and go work for them. Also means we can't diversify our portfolio like the VCs can.

[icedchai]

You can diversify by investing in public markets, where you have actual liquidity. I've made more off of the Facebook stock I bought after the IPO than I have from any of the startups I worked for. One did have a "successful" exit, meaning the returns were positive, though nothing to write home about. I would've been better investing that money into Apple or AMD. All the people complaining about their worthless stock options need to realize that generally, the investors all got screwed, too.

[ahelwer]

The whole thesis of VC funds is to invest in many companies and have a few home runs drive returns. VC-backed companies failing is just the cost of doing business in a random extremistan world. For programmers it's as you say - either nothing, or at best "nothing to write home about". Unless you win the lottery.

[icedchai]

Yep, I understand. I've worked for 5 startups in roughly 20 years. Only one had any real success, resulting in that "okay" outcome. I have more than enough capital to meet accredited investor status, and wouldn't invest in a private company again. (I have in the past and know I'll never see that money again.)

[C1sc0cat]

Are there no listed PE funds

[StreamBright]

It would be classical free market capitalism if anybody with any money could be investing in anything. This is not the case in the US where you need to qualify as an investor prior of being able to invest in startups or companies.

[yourapostasy]

It is possible to form Reg D 506 (d) or (b) syndicates with up to 35 non-accredited investors for example, but risks and costs pretty much steer most offerings towards only accredited investors. The costs of sustaining the deal flow and associated compliance to work with 100 non-accredited investors who stump up the same amount as 1-10 accredited investors, plus the increased legal risks, make it very financially unattractive to cater to non-accredited investors.

This is the "no one comes away happy" outcome of bad actors on both sides of the desk in the past.