Hacker News Reader

Comment by cwkoss | Hacker News Reader

As a new startup, I'd assume that the technical co-founder is doing a lot of maintenance and automation to keep everything running smoothly. Why not let something break, and then they'd have a stronger negotiation position?

I can't imagine (but would be very impressed with tech co-founder) if a year old system could run without any maintenance for a month. Seems also unlikely that tech co-founder could be replaced fast enough to continue reliable service seamlessly. I don't think non-tech co-founder realizes that if tech disappears, it will kill the baby.

View on HN

> Why not let something break

Because this is the professional equivalent of shitting in your hand and throwing it at the wall?

The fact that an adult would suggest abdicating any professionalism and just letting a site with 60k users and investment backing start to break to prove a point is astounding.

The non-technical co-founder is trying to steal the fruits of OPs labor and slash his equity by more than 90%.

This isn't sabotage, it's a labor strike until an equitable agreement is found.

This is very bad advice.

OP definitely should not do anything that might give the impression that they are abandoning their duties or, worse yet, actively sabotaging the company. That would be a dream come true for the other person’s lawyers.

If the OP wants to keep his equity, he needs to continue fulfilling his duties and demonstrate that he is, in fact, still working for the company.

Please don’t follow petty HN comment section advice like this. Not only is it unprofessional, but it can quickly turn into self-sabotage. Play it clean and don’t give the other side ammo to use against you in court.

> This isn't sabotage, it's a labor strike

Exactly. Big difference between breaking something and letting something break.

You can frame it that way if you want but it's just not true.

OP has been doing X for 11 months, for free (well, for equity). Right now - today - he owns that equity, regardless of what his partner is asking him to do. If he stops doing X what is his argument against his partner and the investor - who own 50-60% of shares - saying that he's abdicating his duties?

"This is a complex technical issue, and I'm still investigating to find the right solution"

"It seems this role is too much for you to handle which is why we need someone else, we'll let you keep 3%, sound good?"

"Lying to your investors is fraud."

Well technically no contracts are broken? Calling it a theft is overblown, there is no theft happening if all contractual obligations are met.

> Why not let something break

These responses, my word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com