You're a newly fired IC? In a comment several days ago about vesting schedules it sounds like you were speaking as a cofounder. If these were the same role then something smells suspicious about how your coworkers were treating you from the start IE any of these leaders and the general style of operating the company should have included your input. Moreover, I'm surprised they'd make a decision like this so flippantly as I'm not sure how it could be easy to fire a cofounder without significant legal headache to the company.
I guess I don't get it -- if you've founded a company and it went successfully enough to where you can be an LP (or you are otherwise independently wealthy), why would you join an early stage company full-time as an IC when you could join as a consultant or advisor to smoke out whether the collaboration is a good fit for you?
bear market in my asset class and fallback employment sector was a little long
and its not an early stage company
I want fresh IC references and thats been successful
I want subsidized health insurance / contribute to an HSA and that's been successful, at least I have COBRA again and can keep contributing to an HSA uninterrupted
I want professional validation on stacks I want to use, get paid to do that
I want structure because doing side projects on my own schedule didn't have the same motivation for me
why does being versed in other parts of the industry dilute the point, need me to log in with an alt to be relatable?
I think it's okay to want the freedom, outsized reward and even the status of being a successful founder, with all the risks attached. I think it's also fine to want the benefits and stability of being an materially comfortable employee in tech with a good career progression. They are different paths and different strokes work for different folks.
But I think it's fair to say you have to pick a lane. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you haven't succeeded as a founder, it rings ironic to proclaim "4 year vesting with 1 year cliff is just simulating what FAANGs were doing 10 years ago but out of touch tech wannabes are imagining is normal now" or that "we only took non-dilutive capital, nothing that converts to shares - people need to use their imagination."
Do you think it's fair for someone would to ask whether if you were really serious about succeeding as a founder, you should've invested a little less imagination into the capitalization strategy and a little more imagination towards identifying the ideal customer problem to be solved? After all, it's not like there's any dearth of founders who have built successful businesses with the standard VC backed approach. Especially those who were facing bear markets for what they were building.
Lord knows VC could use some competition. The issue I've observed is that everything else (except bootstrapping for very specific kinds of businesses) is purely worse for a founder who isn't already independently wealthy, which is ultimately just a different kind of bootstrapping.
I'd love to be proven wrong if there is, empirically, an alternative.
so you find these ad hominems in my post history to be relevant because they were interesting to you, but then the idea of actually being passionate about being on the coding side is too incongruent with what you think someone that achieved large numbers would do, calling into question that exposure and experience
okay
following my business successes - which can include passing through profits outright, and or exits - I’ve done “thought leadership” and advisory to other companies, I’ve travelled around Europe for extended periods of time half way doing advisory but mostly living out a dream I wanted and enjoyed, I’ve formed funds and managed capital with great legal counsel, fund administrators, the works. I’ve had periods of illiquidity, even periods where liabilities were greater than assets, right now I like to get paid to do nextjs, and rust, and a couple other stacks.
turns out, you don't have to pick a lane. people take the linkedin and resume I choose to show at face value, which only shows IC roles and an Engineering Manager role.
the aforementioned guy merging PRs in random order decided that the existence of merge conflicts were all the devs fault, pinned a merge conflict on me and said I wasn't a good fit for their management style, a charitable explanation as none of us would pass an interview if we described an application development process this way
so I did in fact put a target on myself for asking anything
all happened at the end of yesterday, thought I was in the clear but they were conferring. My weekend post and reflection ironically turned out to be foreshadowing.
(hm all the time stamps are wrong, I originally posted the observation two days ago. I posted this sunday or so and got fired on monday afternoon)