[justonceokay]

Ehh. I don’t love it and it isn’t good optics, but if you can’t find a way to utilize your employeees (such as having a hard time finding a maeket fit for an existing product) then it isn’t your moral obligation to keep paying them. It isn’t clear what employees were laid off ir for what reason either.

[shash]

The original sin was probably hiring those people for a not-yet-clear business in the first place…

[mcny]

Yes, the people who did those hirings should probably be let go as well. But eventually, it is the CEO and the board who are responsible and they seem to never pay a price for their poor action / inaction.

[lacker]

It is not a sin to hire people when you aren't 100% confident your business is going to succeed. That's just how startups work.

Some people are not in a position in their life to take any risk of losing their job, and that's perfectly understandable, but those people should not take a job at a startup.

[vanviegen]

Yes, let's forbid startups! /s

[shash]

Yeah, the point here is nuanced, but let's do an argumentum ad absurdum instead /s

Probably the _best_ advice I got from the entire startup community is, "don't scale without PMF". The saving grace here is that they didn't scale beyond 140 people, so the damage is limited. And they didn't double down on something that would have dropped the whole thing down.

But as a founder, I'd consider it a failure of planning on my part if I had to lay off 50% of my workforce (a failure nobody is immune to, but a failure nonetheless).

[vanviegen]

That's not an argumentum ad absurdum. The whole point of a startup is to try to build a business based on a as-of-yet unproven business model, which usually involves hiring people.

If you need that many people to (dis)prove viability.. I don't know. Hard to judge from the outside, though easy to judge in hindsight.