[morgante]

> there are actually legitimate issues with privacy there

~Every interview process I've gone through required an NDA at some point.

> I mean - I think it's fully legit for people to have a 'broad sense of the state of the company' - and companies should be prepared to speak to it in some way. But not exactly in the way people are asking.

A "sense of how the company is doing" is not anywhere near enough. The company can be doing extremely well and that still doesn't give me any indication what (for example) 10,000 shares are worth.

If a company won't provide at a minimum the percentage your equity grant represents and valuation at last funding round, you should rightfully value stock at $0.

[jollybean]

You're talking about two different things, which gives credence to my point that 'interviewee doesn't know what they are asking'.

The 'health of the company' and the 'valuation of you shares' are completely different things.

On your last point: "a minimum the percentage your equity grant represents and valuation at last funding round" - yes, they should probably do that. Because otherwise, the value of that equity could be anything, it's impossible to know what 10 000 shares means.

But that doesn't tell you anything about the company. Private valuations are mostly fantasy.

You'll want to get a sense if the company is healthy, and even 'burn rate' isn't so much the right question, it's probably new customers.

If the company is growing in terms of revenues and customers, it's probably the most positive signal of all not only in terms of stability, but also the actual value of the equity in then i.e. 'if it will be worth something'.

Finally, NDA's are not a very good protection, everything is still 'need to know'.

[morgante]

> You're talking about two different things, which gives credence to my point that 'interviewee doesn't know what they are asking'.

Your position is inconsistent and conceited. If you have actual points, you wouldn't resort to denigrating others.

Especially since you're moving the goal posts, your contribution to this thread is useless. You've swiftly gone from saying employees should scrounge info on funding rounds from the web to admitting employees need to be told info about outstanding equity and valuations.

I hope you're never in a position of hiring for a startup. Anyone with an attitude like yours would chase away quality candidates and only leave clueless rubes behind.

> You'll want to get a sense if the company is healthy, and even 'burn rate' isn't so much the right question, it's probably new customers.

This shows how incredibly uninformed you are. It's easy to acquire many customers by selling $1 for $0.50. It doesn't mean the business is healthy.

[jollybean]

No, I didn't move the goal posts - you did.

I highlight the fact that you did that - which validated my position that 'interviewees won't know specifically what to ask'.

You jumped into the ad hominem.

I have 'hired for startups' in fact several of them, including two Unicorns, and I'm an adviser to others, and I've helped set up a VC fund.

But that's besides the point.

You don't seem to understand the material being presented, but maybe worse, lack the self awareness to recognize that, and possibly have thin skin, all of which are not good attributes for dynamic environments like startups.

[morgante]

You are being deliberately vague with your position and relying on ad hominems.

I'll help you. For each of these questions, do you think it's something employees should be told:

1. How many shares are outstanding and what preferences are included in the cap table? 2. What was the valuation at last raise and when did that round close? 3. What's the burn rate and remaining runway? 4. What are the 6/12/18 month plans for the company? What are the biggest risks and opportunities currently facing the company?

> You don't seem to understand the material being presented

Again with the ad hominem.