[didgetmaster]

>People often get into startups because of the chance for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Few people will take the chance to join a risky venture if the didn't see some kind of payout down the road. I once left my stable job to join a startup. I took a salary cut and even loaned them money to make paroll. But I got some founders stock and had confidence in the product we were building. It payed off years later when the company was aquired.

But I also knew that I had to contribute effectively if I wanted that company to succeed. Too many will join a startup just to be on the bandwagon if an M&A event happens. They think they will win big even if they do little to make that actually happen. These people are parasites that can kill a startup.

[guappa]

You can contribute amazingly and the company can still fail.

Equity might be worth 0. You were lucky… but it's not a fault to not want to bet years of work and just sticking to the paid hours.

[didgetmaster]

Of course, there are no guarantees that a startup will be successful. But it wasn't just luck. Myself and others worked hard to create something valuable. If I wanted the safety of a paycheck while working just the minimum hours, I would not have made the leap.

My criticism was of those who join a startup for the chance at a payout but don't want to put in the effort to help make that a likelihood.

[lazide]

Most people want to get rich quick/easy, so it’s quite hard to actually do so (there is a lot of competition).

It’s dumb to want to get rich unnecessarily hard (‘overpaying’ in effort for the actual outcome).

Somewhere in the middle is a good trade off. A big part of being a founder is finding the right people to contribute to make it a success.

There are a lot of freeloader/non-effective types, everywhere.

Big corp and gov’t often has no choice but to accept them, but not so for startups.

The founders ultimately are responsible for who they hire and what they produce.

[guappa]

The problem with founders is that, in my experience, they usually can't tell who's good and who's just being useless for 12 hours in a row at the office. So they use "hours" as their metrics to decide who's the best.

[lazide]

How did that work out for them?

[karmelapple]

> But it wasn't just luck.

Agreed that success such as yours is not only luck!

But as a co-founder of a SaaS company that has survived over a decade, I would stress that luck* is also part of it.

Many people work very hard at a startup and the thing just crashes and burns, sometimes very quickly. It's not just hard work and being competent at your job - other things outside of your control or influence have to happen to align, too.

* I think "luck" is a pretty good descriptive word for things outside of your control and influence going your way.

[donor20]

Startup stock can get diluted to hell during a non amazing acquisition. So founders and key staff (3-4) sometimes get a deal structure that rewards them for doing a year or two at buyer