|
|
|
|
|
by fallingknife
852 days ago
|
|
> here we have a technical founder who spent years of their life working hard to build a product only to have their hard work de-valued in ownership terms by a non-technical founder who would be cleaning toilets were it not for their ability to scam naive engineers into doing The Work for them. How can you conclude that? You have only heard one side of the story. The other probably goes something like: > I hired a CTO who turned out to be incompetent and was unable to build the organization and take advantage of a great opportunity. When we finally convinced him to leave, the company was near failure and we had to raise money at a near zero valuation to keep the lights on. He's getting quite a deal with 0.15% for putting in no money when the rest of us had to risk putting money in to rescue his failure. And there's no way to tell what's true. Usually in these cases both sides make themselves out to be saints and the other side is the devil, and best to just not believe a word of any of it without evidence. |
|
Yep. I don't need to hear the side of the story of the people who devalued the hard work of others within their org for their own personal gain.
The only side of the story I need to hear is the side of the CO-founder who was only given 15% stake in the company to begin with so that they could never protect themselves from the clearly Machiavellian CEO.
CEOs in general, tend to be charismatic. They tend to be storytellers. That's often the reason they are chosen for their role; it's often their only real skill -- the ability to develop and push narrative.
In my view, I am better off not hearing the CEO's side of the story. Because I, like many people of average or below intelligence, am unlikely to be able to see through the lies in their narrative. Regardless of what's true, I would probably be convinced by whatever they say.
I have personal experience being fooled by charismatic people. The only side of the story I need to hear is the side of the person who was duped.
> And there's no way to tell what's true.
15% stake for a co-founder who clearly didn't understand the stakes (pun intended) involved in taking such a low equity share clearly points out where the evil lies here.