[gregcohn]

It's very easy to justify turning down early-stage jobs with that mentality -- and I've turned down a number that would have made me retirement wealthy based on precisely that logic.

But now that I'm a founder I'd take issue with the "marginally less risk" comment. Quitting a six-figure job, forgoing income for a year-plus, taking the risks of never getting liftoff or financing, taking another year or more at way-below-market angel-funded salary... this is not "marginally more risk" than someone who comes in with a salary from day one at a company that is in motion. The early employee has much less opportunity cost (and -- worth noting -- can also pull out much more easily if things seem to be moving sideways).

Furthermore the theory of "implied pot odds" applies. You're not just getting the returns on the deal, you're getting all of the career and relationship equity of having been a key player on a huge success.

I would argue that early-stage roles, if you can tolerate the opportunity cost over the near term, are one of the better deals going, and likely (though only arguably) better than being an under-ready founder with a high likelihood of failure.

[kareemm]

> and I've turned down a number that would have made me retirement wealthy based on precisely that logic.

How many have you turned down that would have yielded zero?

> Quitting a six-figure job, forgoing income for a year-plus, taking the risks of never getting liftoff or financing, taking another year or more at way-below-market angel-funded salary...

Absent forgoing income entirely, most seed-stage employees take the same amount of risk.

> you're getting all of the career and relationship equity of having been a key player on a huge success.

The problem is that every founder is selling this vision to early hires, but joining a seed-stage company is almost always too early to determine whether you're joining a huge success or a company that will flame out in any of a hundred ways.

> I would argue that early-stage roles, if you can tolerate the opportunity cost over the near term, are one of the better deals going

I would argue that early-stage roles at companies that become successful are one of the better deals going.

> and likely (though only arguably) better than being an under-ready founder with a high likelihood of failure.

In my experience being a founder is a much better teacher than being an under-ready early-stage employee. Being responsible for the success of the company provides opportunities for growth like nothing else.

[gregcohn]

Hey Kareem, long time!

This is an important discussion, and my comments shouldn't be interpreted to mean I don't think joining an early-stage company is risky. It is! But it is easy to be too conservative with the OP's logic, and not everyone is ready to be a founder, so I think it's a great spot for people who have some risk tolerance but still want to build learnings and networks, and it has potential to turn out well financially too. And, you get a lot more opportunity to see data before you join, and to leave early, if it's not going anywhere.

To answer your question, I have turned down my share startup deals that would have had no stock upside, and accepted a few too. But I've also turned down a number of opportunities that clearly had breakout potential, and in aggregate, if measuring strictly by wealth creation potential, I believe I sub-optimized by not taking more of the startup gigs that were offered to me. (There were other personal reasons for these decisions too, which offset those outcomes.)

YMMV!

[kareemm]

Hey Greg =)

> I think it's a great spot for people who have some risk tolerance but still want to build learnings and networks

Agreed - I think that learning and networks are two major upsides of early-stage co's. My original point though was how, relative to other options, I still don't think it's a great deal.

But indeed, YMMV :)

[kzhahou]

Yeah, being a founder is higher risk. Correct. At each stage towards success, a company is de-risked.

But founders' equity usually totals the equity of all employees combined. Did the founders' risk --and their contributions-- equal the total of everyone else in the company, combined?

I'm arguing the numbers in today's equity distributions are wildly out of proportion.

[interesting_att]

1) "Did the founders' risk --and their contributions-- equal the total of everyone else in the company, combined?"

It depends on how you define the founders' risk as well as their contributions. Both are highly subjective. In Box's case, they could've failed due to an infinite number of potential causes, leaving Levie penniless. We don't consider them because Box is now a huge company. As for a founder's contribution, a prescient business strategy and the ability to handle stress is worth its weight in gold. Who would have thought of starting a cloud storage company in 2005? Who could have raised funds for a tech company in 2005, especially someone as inexperienced as Levie? Additionally, founders have to deal with way more stress than an employee. Founders end up thinking about their startups 24/7, because that is their future. An employee can walk away at any time and just get another job.

2) "I'm arguing the numbers in today's equity distributions are wildly out of proportion."

This assumes there is some ideal proportion, one that leads to some optimal social outcome. High equity payouts for founders mean there will be more founders, as average long-term compensation will go up. High equity payouts for first-employees will mean there be more people who want to join semi-stable startups as employees #1 and #2. Which leads to a better social outcome? I don't really know. I would guess we would be better off trying to encourage people to become founders rather than employees. What I do know is that if you don't think equity is good enough for you, you can always try to start a negotiation or start your own company.

[angersock]

Especially if you take into account saving technical cofounder s from themselves.