Hacker News Reader

Comment by amalcon | Hacker News Reader

Somehow, "considering giving up equity in exchange for services that add only dubious value" equates to "being eating alive."

Then again, I suppose fewer people would read a post titled "Entrepeneur considers letting shark bite"...

View on HN

Do you not agree that if the entrepreneur took the deal, it would kill his company? If so, a kill, in shark language, is appropriately described by eaten alive.

I do not agree because I don't know how 10% stake and "third world" developers may kill. I'm not saying they can't, just being curious.

You don't know how transferring your development offshore to a group that reports to an outside investor can kill a company?

Just asking for clarification here... Honestly sounds like a What The (Cluster) Fuck in the making...

It's not about the stake or the developers. The whole deal sounds fishy. Why won't the investor provide references? Why should the decision be made right away (next day or two)? Why shouldn't this person publicize the site?

When it looks too good (or too suspicious) to be true, it probably is.

10% of the company owned by a random con man would be a big red flag to any real investors in future funding rounds.

He could give away 10% equity in exchange for absolutely nothing, and probably not die. He could, likewise, give away 10% equity in exchange for some offshore developers building something completely random, look at it, decide not to actually use it, and still probably not die.

Now, actually deciding to replace the active codebase with something that's terrible could kill his company, but that's down the road a bit.

Keep in mind that taking the deal also includes getting rid of his technical co-founder.

Rewrite the site from scratch. No more technical resources. Sounds like a pretty good startup-killer to me.

I agree the 10% part is not the problem. It's the strategic change of direction into a dead-end that is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com