Hacker News Reader

Comment by looptwasafail | Hacker News Reader

This post would carry much more weight if Altman had made it before strings were pulled by Sequoia partners to get his failing startup, Loopt, acquihired, and if he'd actually practiced there with his own employees what he's preaching now here.

Further, considering the only major accomplishment of Altman to date was a too-big-(for wealthy, well-connected VCs)-to-fail startup that in its last years served primarily as a gay hookup app(1), I don't see why everyone is so impressed with him, nor why they take these regular, grandiose pronouncements of his so seriously.

1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=385178

View on HN

Even if you don't take what he says seriously, I think what he wrote in this particular post makes sense. When I negotiated with startups I demanded the 10 year exercise provision. I can't believe that isn't standard. I don't want to be, in effect, forced to forfeit vested equity. It is almost like leaving a company and being asked to return your wages or face a huge tax penalty!

I am trying e generous here. It is reasonable to ask (if true) why Altman did not practise as he preaches. The interesting answer would be what changed his mind in the intervening years

As for the second paragraph, I cannot find enough generosity to see it as anything other than ad hominem trolling, and I would suggest an edit. Especially as you have a troll throw away name.

> The interesting answer would be what changed his mind in the intervening years

Maybe employees are starting to wise up and reject the below-market salaries VC-backed startups offer in exchange for worthless options (that will be diluted considerably before acquisition, or are of some class of stock that won't be acquired with the rest of the firm, or that can't be affordably exercised if you leave the company)?

> As for the second paragraph, I cannot find enough generosity to see it as anything other than ad hominem trolling, and I would suggest an edit. Especially as you have a troll throw away name.

The second paragraph just expresses my honest confusion over why so many people think Altman is brilliant and near everything he says is worthy of serious consideration and discussion. As I see things, Sam has one failed startup under his belt and not much else.

No your final paragraph here express your honest confusion. The paragraph we are talking about has a slightly poor taste reference to gay dating, and an argumentative statement Altman has done nothing but start Loopt. His Wikipedia page suggests he acted as an investor in many companies pre-YC, and worked some means for Reddit to have an unusual ownership form.

This all suggests to me that a man who become rich at 19 on a startup used that to experiment and understand the startup world, and has grown an interest (and willingness to try new ideas) in how ownership affects the outcomes of companies, which is exactly what we are talking about.

So his history suggests a learning path about company ownership and leads directly to here. I would look closely and internally at the causes of your confusion.

Knowing whether a VC who will be giving you advice has been a successful operator is, in turn, pretty standard advice.

(No comment on the rest, staying out of it.)

> The paragraph we are talking about has a slightly poor taste reference to gay dating

I characterized Loopt's waning days as a gay hookup app because that is exactly how it functioned. How is that poor taste? People here are hanging on the every word of a man whose greatest accomplishment to date was the predecessor to Grindr.

> His Wikipedia page

is little more impressive than that of any other VC lottery winner. Again, what's the big deal?

Strange tone to your reply, especially in the second paragraph.

It is strange and suspicious that you felt that "gay" was relevant to your analysis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com