Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Aurornis 761 days ago
> It wasn’t always this way; from 2015-2019, everyone at Gumroad was paid cash, no equity. No one wanted any.

Gumroad started in 2011 and raised $8 million. The reason "no one wanted" any equity in 2015 was because they laid most employees off, replaced them with contractors, and the investors wrote their equity down to $1 as a gift to the founder. The founder got to keep the IP, ditch the founding employees, and continue running the company.

The founder wrote a couple articles about the experience:

https://www.businessinsider.com/startup-failure-gumroad-why-...

https://sahillavingia.com/reflecting

What's not pictured in these articles is the employee perspective. The founder got to keep his company, got the company's IP handed to him, and I don't know what became of the employees' equity. Probably nothing, given that the company had to be written down to nearly $0 for this transfer.

I remember reading a very angry Twitter rant from an ex employee who was burned. I wish I could find it now, but that was nearly a decade ago. It was one of my cautionary tales about taking equity in startups at the time. It hadn't ever crossed my mind that someone could take VC money, pay employees (partially with equity) to build a company, then everyone gets laid off, equity declared worthless, but the founder gets to continue operating the company at a profit.

It's also interesting to note that the Tweets embedded in both of those articles above come from Austen Allred, the now-infamous founder of Lambda School. Lambda School was rebranded to BloomTech after their first wave of scandals, which was rebranded again to Bloom Institute of Technology after their recent scandal (which resulted in Austen being banned from all student-lending related activities for 10 years). The two of them are prolific social media users and have an incredible ability to rewrite their own stories through sheer volume of social media postings and articles.

3 comments

Everything you wrote was par for the course for a private equity company (note that venture capital is a tiny subclass of private equity)

The founder kept everything because investors expect that their relationship with this person is going to continue and eventually this person is going to “make the fund” in a future venture

That’s the key thing here, as a CEO/founder if you have gotten the stamp of approval from venture/capital class (in the form of a series A conversion on a note, or some kind of liquidity event), as long as you’ve pledged allegiance to returning investors capital above all things, you can “fail” a lot actually, and it’s pretty much ok as a writedown.

Provided that you keep investors legally at the front of the line, they will be willing to continue to invest in you.

This is why you see all these people put “serial founder” in their bios, they want to signal that they are a reliable person for finance to come to

I'm not sure that VC's will be investing in the company of a failed entrepreneur. At least something should have changed to make the company "better". In Gumroads case the truth was that the money would be pretty much gone, the company is not going to be valuable. He didn't raise this time from VC's, but from clueless retail investors, which is quite a different thing.
As a strong counterpoint, Adam Neumann lost $16B of Softbank's money and walked away with almost a billion of it himself personally. [0]

He later raised 350m from A16Z[1], so this is not universally true and in fact is a pretty big counterpoint. Adam Neumann is about the worst founder you can fund (Maybe SBF is worse) and can still command vast sums from top tier VCs.

[0]https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/a8vuka5hj [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=adam+newman+new+company+fund...

As best I can tell VCs largely attribute their 99% failure rate to largely random chance rather than their own inability to pick winners - so the failure of an entrepreneur is not a particularly strong mark against them and a weaker mark than the fact they got funding in the first place.
> I'm not sure that VC's will be investing in the company of a failed entrepreneur

Andreessen Horowitz has entered the chat with a $350M check for Adam Neumann

> him, and I don't know what became of the employees' equity. Probably nothing, given that the company had to be written down to nearly $0 for this transfer.

It is somewhat addressed (without specifics) in the article:

> We also gave a token amount of equity to alumni who worked on Gumroad from 2011-2015, without whom you wouldn’t be reading any of this. Thank you!

For sufficiently low values of "token", I might be likely to publicly tell them where to shove it. That's like leaving a $0.10 tip: "it's not that I forgot. I just didn't think it was worth more."

Frankly, I'd rather have nothing.

Yeah the math on what, 300k in equity on a 100MM “valuation” by retail investors is… hey it ain’t nothing. 0.3% of 5MM dividends is 15K.

For a dude who’s only alive because his investors decided to walk away from their 8MM investment, that’s kinda tight. But freelancers just want the cash, so if he’s paying cash, this is just some weirdo being weird in tolerable ways.

The whole performance here is off putting to me though. You got gifted a huge amount of money and kept almost all of it for yourself. Alright man. You got the right. Everybody is a big boy and agreed to the deal.

But let’s not play around about how you got rich, or how much of the pie goes in your own pocket versus everybody else’s.

> The founder got to keep the IP, ditch the founding employees

What kind of ungodly sh*t is that...