[doodda]

This post has managed to piss off everyone: employees who didn't realize founders were getting liquidity events while they're still sitting on their more-often-than-not valueless equity, and founders who feel they've earned it and don't like the implication they haven't.

[mattgreenrocks]

The mark of a good post!

[boringg]

Good point. Its interesting to see the comment thread here.

The part to me that I see as surprising is dismissal of the stress of taking VC money and being a founder. It is a job thats incredibly demanding. Which is eye opening to me that that's how people see it.

If it was so easy why aren't there more of them and more companies?

Early employee is tough - unless the company is on a significant trajectory the options should be valued at zero. That said being an early employee has other benefits such as being part of an interesting team and work problem. Definitely not a cushy job though (and nor is a founder) - both are significantly hard and for a certain personality type.

Everyone else go join a FANGG and get paid if thats what you are looking for comfy life benefits.

[peter422]

The main advantage of being an early employee is that you can leave.

Founders generally need to go down with the ship, early employees do not. If the growth trajectory starts to falter after 1.5-3 years, just get out of there and try another company. Let the founders clean it up (and you have equity in case they do).

[slashdave]

> If it was so easy why aren't there more of them and more companies?

Wait, is this a serious question? The limiting factor is VC money, of course.

[pydry]

>The part to me that I see as surprising is dismissal of the stress of taking VC money and being a founder. It is a job thats incredibly demanding.

Sounds like you're dismissing the idea that being an early employee is hard.

[boringg]

>>"Early employee is tough".

^^ Literally in my comment.

[pydry]

Yes and the people dismissing how hard it was to be a founder were comparing it to being an early employee.

So, you're saying that it's hard but "not that hard actually".

[boringg]

Its a different risk profile and a different level set of responsibility. Founder has the entirety of the company on their shoulders. Early employee has a lot - but they can leave and join another firm if they want.

However my original comment was pushback about how easy it is to take VC money (comments I have seen) and how low-risk being a founder is - which is patently false.

[matsemann]

It also reminded me about another post I read here, probably a few years ago, that outlined how stuff works. And my takeaway from that one, was yet another way that early employees get shafted, as they get diluted a lot, and other employees being brought on later end up with a better exit in the end. But I can't remember the details or find it.

[blitzar]

You managed to make both parties sound like absolute tools.

[JonChesterfield]

Not the founders clearing life altering capital returns from the pre-revenue company seeking product market fit. They're winning.

[arolihas]

How does the employee sound like a tool here?

[largbae]

If I hadn't found your comment I was going to say this is the best HN I've seen in months.

[reportgunner]

Oh yes it's time to shoot the messenger.

[stefantheard]

This is the reason I didn't check the comments until a couple of days later - I didn't expect anyone to read this and I also figured everyone would be pissed haha - the response is more mellow than I expected for a semi-controversial HN thread though!

It also pissed off some investors, so everyone is pissed off - I might write about something a bit more positive next time :D

[rk06]

Yeah, this one lives up to headline!