Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, that's 0.0075%.

Versus a ballpark of a 10th engineer getting, say, 0.5%.

Even a few rounds of dilution can't explain a drop of two orders of magnitude.

I'm thinking the author either didn't pay attention or care or trusted too much in the initial offer, didn't stay long enough to vest most of it, didn't buy most of their options in the end, or all of the above?

View on HN

This number makes complete sense. I was a 'key employee' once upon a time - in a startup that had just raised f&f, and I received a FULL 2% (unheard of for Canada).

Fast forward through the (usual) reality of 6 rounds of dilution, and my 2% was worth less than 0.02%. If the startup went from a $2M valuation to $200M (as it did) then my take would have been $40K.

Do with that what you will.

It sounds like your startup was unfortunately an outlier with respect to the level of dilution experienced. 99% dilution over 6 rounds is far from 'usual reality'. More common is 20% dilution per round.

6 rounds of 20% dilution will get you to 74% total dilution from the initial grant.

Which in this case nets you >$1M [0] vs the 80k quoted above. This also assumes no retention grants over 6 rounds.

  [0]: 0.02*0.8^6*$200,000,000 = $1,048,576

It was also an outlier, in the sense that it had a valuable exit.

You've only got one lifetime to pull the equity slot machine, hoping that the reels come up all sixes.

Something I am always curious about is, was your company / CEO open and honest with you about how your shares were doing? If you worked somewhere for 5 years, it could be easy to think you're safe but meanwhile the CEO is diluting your equity to fractions of what it originally was? Don't they have to report that to employees?

Every round of financing, the shares got diluted but the total value of shares should increase. Otherwise, the company is not doing well and taking a down turn.

In my experience both as that employee, and sometimes the executive - they're not. There are frequently legal, secrecy, or other corporate reasons for the lack of disclosure. It kinda sucks - but it's understandable.

To be fair, I'm someone who has never chosen shares over base salary. The equity slot machine is fine, but I (firmly) believe that over the long haul, the only thing that matters is index investing. Benjamin Graham is always right.

I appreciate shares - I work either way. They're just not my motivation. If that works for others - great.

If the Lyft founders are entering the IPO with about 3.5% each, then I don't think it's crazy for 10th engineers these days to have less than a basis point.

That doesn't tell the whole story. There's a dual class share structure and even with the 7.5%, they retain majority control of the company.

When you're talking about valuing their shares, yes, it does tell the whole story. They cannot transfer their extra voting rights, so if they're ever interested in monetizing their investment, they have to convert to limited voting shares to sell. And all we're talking about here is the monetary payout of working at a startup.

> And all we're talking about here is the monetary payout of working at a startup

Fair, I concede my point based on this premise.

That’s (substantially) more than I have as #5 at a startup. Truth be told I didn’t pay attention to this when joining because at the time they hadn’t yet set up their EMIs and I was told that negotiating for share options is pointless since their expected value is close to zero. So, if I had insisted I could probably have gotten more. But it’s neither unheard-of, nor even particularly rare from what I’ve heard (in the UK).

Dilution isn't all that matters. There's also investor liquidation preferences that can drastically change the outcome.

Liquidation pref for investors with preferred shares.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com