I have seen an astounding amount of "biz guy" entitlement in this industry.

It can't tell you how many times I've talked to potential co-founders who were a pair of frat boy types who had business school degrees. They pitch their idea as if it were a company, but all they have are some powerpoint and a few phone calls under their belt. They wanted to be CEO and "VP Sales" and would be happy to let me be CTO, they just want the to build the product and engineering team and for that-- because they liked me so much-- they'd let me have %5 of the company! (Vesting of course, one year cliff.)

They don't understand when I laugh at them... and I think its because there are too many suckers out there and they soon find one.

I think those people need to be broken down proper before there's any chance of salvaging them. Living with one of those, this is the mental tape that plays in my head whenever they mention anything "startup".

"Hrm, great, but what have you been smoking. Your business idea sounds like something a 5 year old drew in Crayola after watching an episode of shark tank. Your equity won't buy you a roll of single-ply toilet paper if you had a coupon. You're starting a startup, which is the most blunt force trauma way of getting paid market rate, and your (business) degree...well, it's worth less than your equity . That network you built whilst doing case studies on Apple is going to help you as much as a lifeboat in the Sahara. Only thing you have is a bit of hustle, and there's people running fruit-stands in shenzhen that have more of it than you. Sit down, shut up and do things, and maybe in 5 years you'll make a decent founder."

I mean you'd hope that it'd stick, but it doesn't. Nothing more infuriating than people talking the talk whilst you're walking the walk. My reading list is longer than your business plan, so fermez la porte and do stuff instead of distracting me whilst I'm trying to work.

It's really weird. /rant

I'm aware that it might be angry and off-topic, but I thought some parts fit the "straight outta b1zn3zsk00l" people.

> I mean you'd hope that it'd stick, but it doesn't. Nothing more infuriating than people talking the talk whilst you're walking the walk. My reading list is longer than your business plan, so fermez la porte and do stuff instead of distracting me whilst I'm trying to work.

Why infurating? Are you expecting them to appreciate you for how awesome you are? It's almost never going to happen, even if you are truly awesome - that's just how people are.

The solution is to not have business conversation with people you consider clueless about business. Talk to them about football or whatever if you like them and want to maintain a friendship, or simply don't talk to them at all.

It's personal resentment against a person in particular, and there's not much to be done about it.

But I do think that people like that are harmful, and that they need a good blunt reality check.

They'll get it, in a couple of years, when the outcomes of their business ventures are nowhere near where they expected them to be :)

The flip side of this is the incompetent developer who produces hunks of irretrievably flawed spaghetti code which works just well enough to get paid, but is a technical dead end that will never work well enough for the company to derive long-term value.

Granted, it's easier to be a useless biz guy than it is to be a useless developer since there's no litmus test for the former, but it's absolutely true that both exist. Your goal is to steer far clear of them.

While I agree with you, I want to note that long-term value is often not what these businesses want or need: the work required to get LTV is often perceived as delaying time to market, and sometimes the right choice is to optimize time to market over correctness or soundness.

In my experience this is frequently an unstated source of contention and unaligned expectations between engineering and business sides of the organization and one that is very useful (and liberating!) to get aligned on from the outset of a venture. And frequently, compensation structure is a useful part of that alignment: if you will also benefit from the time to market, that tradeoff feels less like someone asking you to make more work for yourself or others down the road (in the form of ops or rewriting)

See this, in my opinion is a perfect example of the engineer entitlement the parent mentioned. These guys probably have a decent idea and the ability to execute on it. Their background probably enables them to get the required capital, sell/market the product and hire engineers to build it. The majority of engineers probably don't have that entrepreneurial/business ability. Those guys obviously don't have the knowledge required to build the product but they do have the skills required to get the resources to hire people who can. You don't make it clear in your comment if that equity doesn't come with a salary (that changes things obviously) but if they're paying you a salary to do a job and you expect lots of equity because you think you are so important you can't be replaced, you're probably very wrong.

It's not entitlement, it's gauging what's your bargaining position versus what the other side tries to convince you it is.

Obviously both a business person and an engineer will have value in a venture. There's nothing wrong with both types negotiating and asking for their fair share.

I completely agree regarding negotiation. But it's hard not to see these points from the parent as seeming entitled or as looking down on business types because they're not as good as, or important as, you.

"a pair of frat boy types who had business school degrees."

"They pitch their idea as if it were a company, but all they have are some powerpoint and a few phone calls under their belt."

"They don't understand when I laugh at them..."

He is describing his perceptions and experiences as far as I can tell.

With due respect, ideas are a dime a dozen; and if this people had the "ability to execute on it", they would not need the engineers to do just that, would they?

I do not want to disregard anyone's skills, technical of business. Even if the GP is right that those guys where frat boys, they probably had valuable connections to bring into the table. But it is not fair that biz types hide behing the "salary" argument to shortchange engineers.

They are not just bringing early employees, they were looking for their CTO, for goodness sake! I am ok with not offering an "equal partners" deal, but it has to be partners. IF they are so wonderful business types, they why they do not get a Series A round without a product and then hire an employee CTO with a matching salary?

I will answer you why, and it is the same reason why engineers should not demand millionaire salaries. It is because your contribution's worth zero if it is not leveraged by the contribution of the other partner.