Hacker News Reader

Comment by c52Andy | Hacker News Reader

Thanks Geoff, solid advice.

Forgot to mention in post that we have an acting CTO/senior advisor that has held that role at several other companies (and currently employed as such) that would help us identify/vet the pair. He's interested but unwilling/unable to leave his job and he already lives in Hawaii! ;) But, he's going to basically 'donate' an hour a day to review code and help shape strategy, and is interested in coming on board for salary/equity if we can find seed.

We're still struggling with what constitutes fair equity. Obviously x% of 0 is still null. So on the one hand giving over founders share is attractive; on the flipside, we're trying to offer some cash/benefits up front to hackers while bootstrapping; wouldn't founder equity also include founder 'stakes' (no pay, doing it for the love/risk, etc.)?

View on HN

"But, he's going to basically 'donate' an hour a day to review code and help shape strategy, and is interested in coming on board for salary/equity if we can find seed."

My beef here is that the people who do the least amount of work or, in the case of you and your wife, have the least amount of tech-related skills, would be running the show. If I'm working all day on your startup, the last thing I want is to have that day end with a CTO looking over my shoulders and criticizing my code, especially when that CTO obviously lacks the same amount of commitment that I have. It'd be even more grating if that CTO would then come on full time and essentially jump over me and my colleagues who have done all the work, both in salary and title.

Also, you'd have to be able to prove that you are actually an interesting founder to work with and have skills (if not coding, something else) that will be an asset for the company in the long run. Nobody wants an "idea man" as his/her boss.

Lastly, if you work 12 hours a day, whether you do so in Hawaii or in Siberia doesn't really matter all that much. If you only expect your coders to work for 4-5 hours a day, now that's something else.

Coding-for-space isn't offensive, it just isn't all that appealing.

This feedback is exactly why I posted - and thanks for the scenario. We def bring a lot more to the table than ideas (UI design, proven branding and marketing knowledge/experience; enough skills to jump in wherever needed and whenever needed - "Hey, write me some CSS for that page while I tweak xyz..." "OK, done.") - and the site is admittedly more of a marketing play then a tech play (words of another hacker that's reviewed materials to date). That said, super valid points re. someone 'hopscotching' and well spotted on 12hour days in Siberia. That said, I work about 16 on average and still enjoy the view (and weather) a lot more in those down hours - so surely environment carries some equity. No mai tais in Russia... good Vodka though!

"the site is admittedly more of a marketing play then a tech play" — that could actually be an advantage if it means you chiefly need coders for a couple of months to get things started, rather than a multi-year commitment. Makes it look more like a vacation.

"Makes it look more like a vacation." True assuming an MVP in exchange for a short vacation sounds fair; and effectively that was our thought - spend the time to get it launched here, then go home.

BUT, equity in exchange would be restricted stock options with vesting clauses - so longer commitment required beyond an MVP. If we had e.g., 1/2+ the cash to pay a team for 6 weeks full-time that might be fair w/no equity and a 'paid vacation' on reduced salary; but I personally wouldn't go for that... not without an extra month of no-work live-in included anyway!

You're not really offering significant benefits to the hackers. We're talking about a few thousand dollars cash value. Salaries in silicon valley for sharp engineers are easily six figures. And someone who is relocating to join a startup with no funding or traction is definitely "doing it for the love/risk". I mean, if you can get someone to take those terms, awesome, you rock. But most of your applicants are going to be people who can't get jobs elsewhere, or who just want vacations in Hawaii (what incentive do they have to work hard when they get there?) -- so buyer beware.

I would focus on getting one engineer who is committed for the long term, and that you are 100% comfortable with -- someone that you could share good times and bad times with, for the next 3-5 years. I'd give this person a founder's stake with 4 year vesting (and I'd take impose the same vesting on myself.) I'd wait as long as necessary to find this person, and if I couldn't find them, I'd try to raise enough money to have competent consultants build a MVP at market rates (after vetting said consultants very, very carefully.)

Also FWIW, you are definitely breaking US law if you don't pay them minimum wage and possibly overtime, and the penalties for this are severe (personal liability of directors, treble damages, all kinds of nasty.) You will be in a precarious position if they sue you, because there will be a clear paper trail from your intellectual property assignments.

Very solid advice Geoff - thanks (for) giving. :) Finding 'the one' is what we'd prefer. The talent vs. availability thing can be tough. We have a friend and talented RoR hacker who's busy pulling a healthy 6 figure salary on account of his skills. He's been helpful in 'networking' to other hackers, but has no interest in leaving the comforts of his paying gig; it's the catch-22 that I imagine plagues a lot of startups.

I think you're right though - holding out for the one that's going to not only put in the time, but be rewarded with a fair founders share and (more importantly) see the product through to it's natural conclusion is the way forward. One more road block seems to be finding someone that wants to go from hacker to team manager.

Either way, and your FWIW is noted, we'd have to create a situation that either sets up a barter contract, an IC agreement that leverages a valuation on time, or create founders agreements that track the input toward future payout (basically what we're already doing) if we invited people over. I think any of those paths would forego any US lawbreaking since they'd be non-employees. It just seems like a lot of legal review (fees) and hassle though vs finding the one engineer and knowing that the partnership and mutual expectations are aligned.

Aloha~

Reply on news.ycombinator.com