Hacker News Reader

Comment by compare | Hacker News Reader

Seems a bit comical that the article claims this to be the first disappearing photo app. I created and launched one myself a year before Snapchat started...

The normal way for start founders to receive equity, is only from one or more of these 3 things:

- For hours worked, based on the vesting and usually the hours must be beyond the cliff or you get nothing.

- If you built a crucial part of the IP that the company needs to buy from you with equity.

- Cash invested up front - less common.

He fulfilled none of those. Not even close to being a cofounder. Ideas aren't included among those.

View on HN

Gah I hate it when people delete comments and then repost them elsewhere in the thread.

I wrote a longish answer to your comment here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8295469

Deleted comment

Have you seen their shareholder agreement? Does one even exist?

Vesting is quite common in the EU, but only when it is agreed upon by all parties. If you're founding a business on equal equity based on the capital deposited you get those shares up front, any additional shares emitted subject to vesting/shareholder agreements, payments and so on.

What you agree on matters, not what you later think you should have agreed on.

Anyway, I note the case has been settled and that you either have some hidden knowledge about this case or that your position is at odds with reality as currently on display.

Just noting how much I hate the practice of deleting comments, especially after someone has replied to them.

Same.

But the downvotes trickle in even after you realized that your arguments, or emotions were not quite up there.

Idea: Functionality to mark your own post with "I concede", keep it grey like downvoted posts and block further voting.

Deleted comment

People care about voting way too much.

It's worth noting that you rarely end up with more than -1 or -2 votes. Write a single popular comment and it more than makes up for it.

I'm not sure what your comment about "people linking to old comments" means. Either you stand by your comments or you don't.

Edit. The comment I replied was by the user "compare"[1] and said the following:

In this case, it was people linking to old comments, to try to make the attacks more personal, and attempting vote brigading. I wish we could ban most of the top active commenters on hacker news. They get controlling and territorial.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=compare

One could argue that the most valuable feedback for a writer is on comments that are rght on the boundary between their viewpoint and alternate viewpoints. Culturally, it would be more valuable if people replied with their reason for disagreement.

Downvotes are clearly intended for moderation (visibility change of font), but are easy to misuse for passive debate.

> I wish we could ban most of the top active commenters on hacker news.

Assuming I'm on it, let's see the rest of your list of HN'ers you'd like to see banned.

HN should remove the option to delete your post once someone's replied to it. Also show all versions of your comment, like facebook does.

Situation: someone accidentally copy-pastes personal data into a comment. Someone else replies, "you probably should remove that". The first person can no longer remove it.

I find it annoying when people delete posts as well, but there are valuable reasons to do it.

I'm guessing [1] is most of them?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders

tptacek

Only because I disagree with his views on everything (besides crypto).

Just kidding. If it weren't for the tptaceks of internet, I'd have no reason to ever leave a comment.

If he was banned because some newbie (or anybody else) demanded it I'd happily join him in exile. Though I very highly doubt that would ever happen. And I'm at odds with Thomas on plenty of subjects, that doesn't mean there should be demands to squelch those that we disagree with.

I would not even want to see people banned for asking other people to be banned. It's just totally against the grain of the community. I read back some more through 'compare's' comments and he did indeed have a run-in with Thomas so you may be on to something there.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7493419

You really need to stop the personal attacks and trying to raise a downvote brigade against my comments, just because we disagreed about a law and culture topic.

I wish the site admins would place a clear written policy against these and other personal attacks next to every comment box.

Or you just edit your posts to clarify/fix somethings

Of course, you can also stand by your original post, which is something I've done sometimes.

Deleted comment

I don't understand why you're coming at this from a US vs EU angle. I've worked in both as well, have had a company in the US, have had a company in Canada as well as several in Europe.

Agreements tend to be legally binding on both sides of the Atlantic, if my experience is any guide then the US is much stronger on contracts and agreements than Europe, but apparently we we're not going to agree on that.

What matters is that we're talking about a very specific case, not just your experience or general matters. And that in that specific case which the linked article talks about there was more than just smoke about there being 3, not 2 co-founders to snapchat and that one of them got unfairly cut out of the deal.

What the US norm is in such cases is not relevant, if you agree on a three way split then that is what you should do. If someone contributes to your start-up in a non-material but essential way then you can decide to reward them or not, but once you've made a commitment towards sharing in the proceeds you can't later backpedal on that.

And there is nothing European about that. Case in point: this lawsuit is going down in the US.

Deleted comment

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8287856

You seem to be really stuck on this point. EU economies suffer because we take contracts extremely literally?

I don't know why you would bring this subject up in several unrelated treads but that's something you can probably answer better than I can. This thread has reached enough levels for me.

You're right, of course, but if young and stupid entrepreneurs say something like "We'll split the company evenly between us" and any semblance of work happens then there will eventually come a day when they'd told that the law does not treat that statement as a code comment. Triply so if they are just smart enough to cut themselves and memorialize their agreement on paper.

While I might agree that contributing a simple idea to a startup isn't generally worth a stake in it, driving that startup with a broad, complex vision over its development certainly is.

Unfortunately, I've met founders that equate the latter with the former, and think it's fine to steal off with "ideas" that people have worked on for years because "well, ideas have no value, only implementation does." If the "idea" is several paragraphs (or even pages) long, and includes comprehensive implementation details, it has value. No question.

Now, SnapChat, I agree, there isn't really much going on there beyond a one-sentence pitch. But not all ideas are that simple, and the complex ones are given inherent value by their complexity.

I don't think it really matters at all what exactly you did if there was an agreement that you get a third of the equity.

Reggie's mistake was not getting it in contractual form. However, clearly the law still takes clearly communicated pacts between friends somewhat seriously, as it forced Snapchat to settle.

Maybe out of topic, but I'm curious what happened to your app and how did it do in that one year.

It got great traction and decent press coverage, in fact I was a bit surprised when journalists decided to go with a nudity angle. In the end I never pursued it further, due to another startup I was working on at the time.

Its true that it's not the idea but the execution that matters for any startup. However in this case, snapchats virality was in the idea(even if it has been done before). The execution side, vs photo apps like Instagram, was simpler and less complicated. Moreover, he was involved in the initial development of the app. He deserved better.

Are you deleting all of your replies?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com