[falcolas]

We don’t currently know what their salaries are, but it’s pretty common for startup salaries to be 50-60% of normal salaries. The rest is typically LLC stock grants. It’s done this way with the promise of “when we sell” those stock holders will make bank. $80k isn’t ‘bank’. Especially if Baremetrics was following the startup-standard salaries.

[vidarh]

Anyone taking a startup job on a 50-60% of a normal salary without several percent of the shares is doing themselves a massive disfavour.

Most of my startup jobs have paid market rate. The shares and options have compensated for the risk, not a lower salary.

I'm sure some accept lower salaries, and certainly the salaries won't be comparable with the very top end of the market, but most people don't work in the top end of the market.

A startup that tried talking me into a massive cut without offering me basically founder-level share amounts would be an instant red flag.

[pwinnski]

All indications are that they were operating on a profit basis, not a growth basis, so I think it's a poor assumption that anybody was being paid a half-salary. As the post states, they're keeping their same compensation going forward, and all are choosing to stay, suggesting it's very satisfactory, and has been all along.

[FireBeyond]

> All indications are that they were operating on a profit basis, not a growth basis

From the founder himself:

> We've had carryover losses for years, so from a tax perspective, there was no hit on either side.

I realize that tax losses can differ from cash losses, but are you so sure about that?

[pwinnski]

I mean, that's somewhat my point? They were not pursuing rapid growth. From the post:

We’re also a company that has purposefully operated right around breakeven for years. So, unless you’re a “strategic acquistion” that throws acquistion multiples out the window, a slow-growth software company without lots of profits and a product that’s technically quite complex is ultimately just not going to get a huge multiple.