There's centuries worth of legislation about equity. You can still get screwed, but "I'm giving you the right to own shares in this company" means something in the eyes of the law. Getting paid in participation tokens doesn't.

This is absolutely technically correct. Practically speaking, maybe not so much.

http://stockoptioncounsel.com/blog/standards-ownership-canth...

Most areas of the world use at-will employment but I'm specifically familiar with the US and Canada. In either of those you can kill options dead due to expiration clauses[1] - actual equity issuance tends to be rarer due to the tax liabilities around it and, either way, dilution can destroy your value and it's completely legal. Additionally, if you crunch for work, you can be denied promised bonuses[2], be fired before they arrive[3], or just be suddenly downsized and end up needing to eat that bonus while you find another job.

Do not work overtime without compensation, no company is your baby and companies have no legal obligation to remember your service. Labour laws are terribly slanted against employees so be very conservative about your expectations from work and never sacrifice your health (mental or physical) due to some B.S. team oriented camaraderie.

I work hard at my shop, I really love all the things we've managed to accomplish and I appreciate all the folks I've built them with. But when it comes to money it is good to be incredibly self-interested because no one else will do it for you.

1. You can be put in a position where you're able to exercise your options but you'll be doing so blindly - trading personally held cash for stock and hoping the company doesn't end up tanking.

2. Bonuses are almost never legally promised in practice, so they remain at the grace of the employer.

3. At-will employment laws means that all future implied payments can be retracted if employment is terminated excepting those that are contractually owed.

You can be employee #2 of a startup, receive a lot of stock early on and then see it dillute to fractions of a cent. Perfectly legal.

This happened to me back in the 90's.

Company 1: The company went bankrupt, founder renamed the company, started a new company with the same name as the original, transferred some assets for pennies on the dollar. It later went public, but collapsed in the dot-com crash.

Company 2: Company raised $50 million during the dot-com boom. After 5 or so years, it still did not have much revenue to speak of. After several down rounds, it was eventually was sold to a major corporation for pennies on the dollar. All common stock was worthless.

Company 3: Still working on it. There have been several down rounds. All employees got their options re-issued at the lower price after a key employee threatened to walk...

> Company 1: The company went bankrupt, founder renamed the company, started a new company with the same name as the original, transferred some assets for pennies on the dollar. It later went public, but collapsed in the dot-com crash.

Is that legal? It looks like the CEO of the company willingly harmed the company's interest to enrich himself, which is basically fraud.

My understanding is that it was done in a legal manner. The majority of the investors were "friends" and had to give sign off. They got a smaller stake in the new venture and promise of larger returns, etc.

Unsure why you are being downvoted.

Perhaps some founders and investors don't want this to be known...

I guess no one paid attention during The Social Network because they spelled it out clearly in that movie.

Happened to me three times... upvoted to bring light to this as startup finances is tricky for most mortals. Dilution, premium vs standard, cliff, etc.

When I was negotiating my current job, I had a competing offer for around $100k more plus equity but it was essentially Engineer #1 after the technical co-founder.

In my negotiations I inquired about said equity and the other founder was vague as hell around all of those important questions that early employees need to ask.

The extra $100k wasn't worth it and I'm making the difference in real, liquid equity (and then some) from my current employer.

They know full well what they are doing or they are naive. It’s so important to know the terms before you commit. However, another ace is living in at at-will-to-work state so I can just quit once I realize I was bamboozled. I’ve done this. I’m not proud of it, but my time is mine. I have goals. Help me achieve my goals and I’m all yours to help you achieve yours. Sad to say but there are founders/CEO’s that know engineers are itching for an early-in to a “rocket ship” and will manipulate to get momentum. Don’t buy it. Do your due diligence. Research. Ask about the terms, the equity, the stock, current value? Dilution? Who’s invested? Who has what stake? Who’s on the board? Prove to me it’s a rocket ship... sales? When do you recognize revenue? How? Opportunity pipelines healthy? All of these things are proxy to an engineer yet all of these things effect the engineer joining the company as employee <50.

So can any equity holder in a company.

Maybe, but if you have RSUs in a FAANG those are your property and pretty safe. They can (must) also be sold when paying tax so pretty liquid asset.

Once you accept a RSU grant they are your property once vested. Regardless of where you work.

Yeah, but for smaller companies there is usually options and preferred ones etc. The upside is a lot larger as well of course.

That's what happened to Eduardo Saverin.

Leading to a lawsuit that was settled with undisclosed terms, but he's reportedly worth $15B now [1], so he must have received quite a lot.

1: https://www.forbes.com/profile/eduardo-saverin/?sh=1b75ae527...

It happens to a lot of other folks that aren't currently worth 15B. He made out well but the majority of folks are left with nothing.

So is Zuckerberg an actual villain?

Well they state it right in the movie that he deceptively tried to screw Saverin over and his own lawyer in a nutshell said "Settle. Because what do you think a jury will say?"

Took you way longer than enough

I thought that was PascalCase and this is camelCase? Have I been wrong all these years?

This is something that I miss about forums of yore and sort of hate about HN, Reddit, and their ilk: the deprioritization of a post author's identity. It took me way too long to figure out you were talking about the username of the person you were replying to. I miss being able to scan through a forum's post listing and readily pick out names of posters I recognized after being involved in the site for a while. It was an additional signal of post quality (or lack thereof, depending on the user). Here, the username is hidden in a sentence of status text, on the same visual level of the number of minutes ago the post was made, all of which is rendered in a light grey font. It's clearly intentional, and I can't for the life of me figure out why the forum owners don't want users to be able to build a consistent identity.

I made a quick little userscript that allows you to attach tags to users on HN. There's pretty much no documentation, I didn't really expect to release it, but it puts a little [t] next to usernames on HN and you can click it to add tags that persist in localstorage and show up next to that user wherever they post on HN. Feel free to use it and adapt it however you like. Only tested on Firefox and I'm sure it's full of bugs and unintended side effects!

https://gist.github.com/errantspark/7000c8a5192eb0b8ee64ba21...

Cool! It works in ViolentMonkey on MS Edge Chromium.

I didn't realize how easy this was to setup and do. Here's a first crack at making user names more prominent.

That's weird, I could have sworn I shared the link

https://gist.github.com/capnmidnight/b61dcecf587949d6adf1dc4...

Wow. You make excellent points, I never realized it was intentional how the usernames blend in on the page on HN and Reddit. This is fascinating! Is it that usernames distract from the content?

wikipedia, the world's highest authority on matters of nitpicking, says camel case can be either; capitalization of the first letter is unspecified.

in practice, I've certainly heard people use camel case to refer to either convention. I hear pascal case a lot when people specifically mean a capitalized first character. wikipedia lists dromedary case as the complement of pascal case, but I've never actually seen this term used IRL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel_case

I've always seen it like camel case when it's not important if you capitalize the first letter or not and lower camel case or upper camel case if it's important.

Yes. CamelCase is such, you're referring to mixedCase. (The first letter is the camel's head.)

I would say the same.

If I got paid in tokens at a startup, I would riot. That’s some “company town” bullshit.

It's just a bonus, not regular compensation, right?

Did you not know about the tokens when you were hired?

Why is your first reaction to "riot" instead of just "quit"? Unless it's in your contract, you don't deserve a bonus.

I can't imagine HR going into it any more than "there is possible bonus compensation" when hiring.

My company's HR people and recruiter both spelled out the bonus plans in great detail (cash vs equity, what you're rated on, typical amounts for my incoming level, etc etc). Don't just accept wishy-washy answers, this stuff matters.

That would still have been a description of the company's nice intentions, and not a contract/legal promise.

Why, when someone tries to take advantage of you, is your first reaction to retreat?

If I knew about the tokens before I was hired, no advantage is taken.

Honestly not even sure I agree that you're being taken advantage of if the policy is enacted after your hiring.

A bonus is a bonus. It is given out at the companies discretion, unless stipulated in your employment contract.

> If I got paid in tokens at a startup, I would riot.

>> Why is your first reaction to "riot" instead of just "quit"?

>>> Why, when someone tries to take advantage of you, is your first reaction to retreat?

Because, "rioting" when you don't get your way is... unprofessional?

Because I want to. It’s my job, and I’d like to keep it. I take great pride in my position. I do graphics programming myself, and those jobs aren’t exactly numerous.

Quitting is for cowards.

> Quitting is for cowards

No, quiting is for people who want something they don't have. Loss-aversion is a very powerful force, especially in the hands of senior leadership.

I hope you'll reconsider your position because it greatly benefits your employer.

You don't have to be your job. I wish you well.