
At Booming Toptal, No Stock for Employees or Investors - artfulhippo
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/at-booming-toptal-no-stock-for-employees-or-investors?pu=hackernewstq0fow&utm_source=hackernews&utm_medium=unlock
======
tschwimmer
A lot of Sillicon Valley startup fundraising ends up resembling an iterated
prisoner's dilemma. Most startups fail and it's likely that you might have to
work with people a few times before you get it right. The [generally] dominant
strategy for Iterated Prisoner's dilemma is tit for tat[0], and consequently
you see a lot of people cooperating when when it might be more lucrative to
defect is because they know that they might want to work together again.
Basically, neither side wants to burn the bridge.

This guy seems to have reasoned that for him, it was more optimal to defect,
and it seems to have worked out. TopTal succeeded and he didn't raise any more
money. His reputation with VCs is torched, but he doesn't need to raise any
more money. If TopTal had failed, it really wouldn't have mattered because he
wouldn't have needed to raise any more either.

You have to wonder if VC will eventually become a market for lemons[1] as
founders who know they have a big opportunity only offer investors unfavorable
terms. Obviously no startup is a 'sure thing' but it does seem like founders
increasingly have a lot more information than their investors.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons)

~~~
klipt
Also this behavior might work in the US, but if you screwed over a bunch of
rich and powerful people in say, Russia, you'd probably end up having an
"accident", changing the leadership of your company to someone more favorable
to said rich and powerful.

~~~
cjlars
If he died, his estate's administrator would essentially be forced to sell
some shares in order to pay the hundreds of millions of dollars his estate
would owe in taxes. Presumably, this would trigger the SAFE for both the
investors AND employees. I wonder if the guy realizes he has a defacto
decamillion dollar bounty on his head.

------
bnt
I think the article misses the point: are we now in an era where you actually
expect to get stock when you join a company?

As a former Toptal employee: IMHO the co-founder in question was widely
regarded as a horrible manager, often pushing people to burnout and generally
imposing a culture of secrecy and mistrust. The VPs they ousted were nothing
better. I personally went through several burnouts while there, but also that
was a springboard to a much better career afterwards. Yes, we've put in 9/9/6
for years in the founding years, but we were also compensated quite
generously.

~~~
zawerf
I don't know if it's still true, but Netflix supposedly offers a really high
base salary with no equity. I think the logic is that you can just buy the
stock yourself with the higher salary if you believed in the company enough to
want equity.

~~~
jedberg
That's not exactly how it works. They give you a total comp number, and then
you choose the cash/equity ratio yourself, which you can change each year. A
lot of people chose the all cash option because they didn't understand there
equity option, so they changed it to give everyone a little bit of equity
regardless, but you can still opt to get extra equity in lieu of cash, and
change that election every year.

I think it is an amazing plan. I was able to choose more equity because I had
a working wife and no kids. Others chose more cash. One guy chose 100% equity,
and is now retired.

~~~
hnbroseph
> One guy chose 100% equity, and is now retired.

being able to choose 100% equity would suggest a particular level of financial
independence before even starting. how long did they work without a salary?
did they regularly sell equity as a salary-replacement?

~~~
chucksmash
Or perhaps a working partner and a willingness to get by on one income. Know a
couple who did this in NYC for a couple of years on non-dev salaries and the
trade-off definitely opened doors for them.

~~~
underwater
How is this any different from taking your entire paycheck and dumping it into
a single stock each month? It's effectively a gamble, and often employees are
too emotionally invested to make a rational financial investment of that
scale.

~~~
jedberg
It was a gamble, but we had a lot of leverage because we got major discounts
with pre-tax money.

------
WheelsAtLarge
I'm I missing something? It seems to me that everyone involved knew what they
where getting into specially the investors. You hear about the cases where
founders get screwed all the time. This is a case where a founder gets to keep
his company. Good for him.

I for one think it's a bit greedy after all he did not build the company all
by himself but silicon valley investment is all about greed. It's just another
day.

~~~
elsewhen
Luring employees with promises of equity and then not delivering sounds like a
bait and switch.

~~~
staticautomatic
But they weren't lured with the promise of equity. The promise was that they'd
get equity _if there was a subsequent funding round_.

The investors, especially, have zero right to complain.

~~~
elsewhen
FTA: “I was told the conversion [of Toptal into a corporation] would happen in
a number of months,” said Aaron Diek, who is based in central Texas and says
he worked for Toptal in 2014 and 2015, when Toptal said it was generating $80
million in revenue per year. “I asked on a number of occasions, and the answer
[from Du Val] was always ‘it’s coming, it’s coming.’

~~~
ilikehurdles
This seems to be par for the course for any startup that drinks its own Kool-
aid. I've been told many times at every organization I've been at by
enthusiastic co-workers believing the exit is right around the corner. It
never was and all of those previous orgs have either gone bankrupt or had
really unfavorable acqui-hires. I believe in enjoying my work environment,
being paid fairly, and doing work that positively impacts society. Beyond
that, I treat every share of equity as toilet paper in the negotiation stage
-- when it comes to a private company organized as a startup/VC-leech.

~~~
ThalesX
I also use this approach and I love how little leverage equity brings them to
the negotiation table. You want to give me equity, nice, but I'm still working
for my preferred salary under my preferred conditions.

------
xivzgrev
Rationally, Sounds like he played the game and won. He didn’t make any false
promises (but I’m sure didn’t correct anyone either).

Values wise, to me sounds like a bit of a dick, esp with the early employees.
Good for him, he made a billion dollars. But he knowingly took advantage of
people who chose to invest years of their life with him. Not cool. He doesn’t
have to keep being a dick either - just give employees a generous bonus (like
1x annual salary) when they reach x years if they did well and a thank you,
not that hard. That’s all people want.

~~~
JamesBarney
I bet he made a lot of false promises just not in writing. I he was trying to
mislead people the whole time. And specifically tried to compensate investors
and employees in ways that he intended to never pay them in a way they thought
they would be compensated.

------
baron816
I don’t feel that bad for the investors, or really even the employees. A lot
of startup equity is worthless anyway.

But screwing over your cofounder and COO—your partner who’s been on the
frontlines with you effectively running the company for eight years—that’s
incredibly scummy. That’s a real psychopath move. How can someone be so
greedy?

~~~
neilv
> _I don’t feel that bad for the investors, or really even the employees.
> [...] But screwing over your cofounder and COO—your partner who’s been on
> the frontlines with you effectively running the company for eight
> years—that’s incredibly scummy._

Are you identifying only as a co-founder, and you don't think that startup
employees deserve to also benefit from success, such as they would by having
equity in the company?

I think the idea -- of startup success being all about the founders, and
employees are just commodities -- is not unusual, but I don't understand why.

Don't startups hire developers, for example, who have key insights, make
technical decisions, and often put in above&beyond effort -- which has
substantial effect on the startup's success?

------
rahuldottech
I am a teenager, and know nothing of starting or running a company. That said,
from what I have read, is it not true that investors who hold equity
constantly apply pressure to maximise profits, often leading to companies
doing... _unethical_ things?

Whenever I've complained about a company being unethical or user-unfriendly, a
friend of mine who lives in the US and knows more about this stuff always
points out that because of pressure from investors, companies are often forced
into such practices, and theorises that any company that takes outside
investment in exchange for equity is always going to end up this way.

~~~
emilsedgh
It really depends on the company culture, sector, etc. There's a lot of
dynamics in here.

Public companies are generally more prone to this issue, as all the ethics
become abstract to shareholders. They are not involved in the dirty work.

A lot of times, companies do the right thing not because of morality, but
because doing the wrong thing has a risk (from a PR disaster to a regulatory
issue).

If the culture of the company is willing, the whole concept of morality is
reduced to a risk/benefit formula. And they start to learn how to reduce risk,
and it's a downhill from there.

~~~
rahuldottech
> A lot of times, companies do the right thing not because of morality, but
> because doing the wrong thing has a risk (from a PR disaster to a regulatory
> issue).

I think we've all seen that at this point in time public outcry and PR
disasters matter very little in the larger scope of things for such companies
(Equifax, Google, Facebook, et al.)

~~~
emilsedgh
Yeah. That's right. The pr disaster cost is getting cheaper and cheaper,
allowing companies to get away with more and more.

------
CalChris
Even if this guy turns benevolent tomorrow morning and issues his options,
they're screwed tax-wise. I can't think of anything I like about this, from
the utter selfishness of the founder to a16z funding such a company with such
bad terms for the employees. I'd like to know who the VC was and read an
explanation from him.

I'm reminded of Steve Blank's article _Startup Stock Options – Why A Good Deal
Has Gone Bad_

[https://steveblank.com/2019/04/10/startup-stock-options-
why-...](https://steveblank.com/2019/04/10/startup-stock-options-why-a-good-
deal-has-gone-bad/)

Discussion of said same:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19624164](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19624164)

------
coupdejarnac
Is there anything about Toptal that isn't scummy?

~~~
jameslk
Would love to know what you find scummy about them. I've been a freelancer in
their network since 2014 and haven't found anything more egregious than any
other agency from my dealings with them.

~~~
sidlls
I briefly freelanced with them in 2014/2015 and I found it to be no better
than E-lance or the like. They definitely didn't (at that time) do have any
better clients, and they constantly pressured me to lower my rate (which I
considered already to be low).

~~~
jameslk
I've had a few projects from them, one very large with a Bay Area client
spanning a year. In the early days they would suggest a lower rate but now
they change it to whatever I ask. I'm not sure what your rate is, but mine is
competitive with Bay Area agency rates. Definitely better than Upwork (Elance)
since I wouldn't be able to find the type of enterprisey clients I find on
Toptal.

~~~
sidlls
When I was doing it they claimed that $65 per hour was a "good" rate for the
Bay Area, and constantly pressured me to lower my rate to that. There were a
few clients with names anyone here would recognize, but they were looking on
Toptal specifically to get cheap labor for poorly specified work. Most of the
clients were more like the stereotypical E-lance "small business" (read: one-
person operation looking for cheap developers to build them the next Facebook
for the equivalent of a $500 fixed fee).

~~~
aianus
> $65 per hour was a "good" rate for the Bay Area

I'm confused, I thought Toptal workers were remote. Why would your location
factor into the rate a client is willing to pay?

FWIW I charged even less than that as a remote contractor and it goes really,
really far in countries like Vietnam or Thailand.

~~~
sidlls
My location wasn't the issue: I meant that Toptal was insisting companies
located in the Bay Area would not want to pay more than about $65/hr (plus
Toptal's surcharge). It was laughable, considering I was at that very moment
working full-time at a company with a base salary with an hourly rate
equivalent that was more than $65/hr, plus I got bonus, stock, and
perks/benefits.

As far as I was concerned, Toptal wanted contractors who'd bill like the were
competing with E-lancers for business, while Toptal was marketing them as "top
talent. "You get what you pay for," and while you (for example) might be an
exception, "top talent" isn't going to charge bargain-bin prices for their
labor.

~~~
aianus
> "top talent" isn't going to charge bargain-bin prices for their labor

Purchasing power differences in the world are insane: $65/h in Vietnam can
represent a much more luxurious life than $200/h in San Francisco.

In fact, the global top 1% starts at US$35k/year!

At $65/h ($130k/year) you'd be able to buy a home outright in about a year,
send your kids to snooty private schools, hire a maid and a private driver,
etc. in a large part of the world.

~~~
sidlls
That doesn't mean much: a top-flight developer in Vietnam isn't going to
underprice his or herself to that degree just because it costs a little less.
If one can live that good on $65/hr, then $80 or $100 is that much better.

------
harrisonjackson
100% the investors are sophisticated + informed enough to understand the risks
of convertible notes. There are similar risks for a founder when accepting
convertible notes. I'd guess the investors could all call the debt in at this
point (like one already did) but they have no incentive to do so since they'd
rather hold out for a conversion event which could still happen.

The risk to a founder is having the debt called and not being able to pay it
back and/or having the valuation of the company not where you'd predicted -
depending on the terms a founder could actually lose their company in this
case. NAL.

Really it just seems _too bad_ for the employees and cofounder that feel like
they're getting screwed. It isn't like "get it in writing" is a new concept
though. I'd guess they either drank the Koolaid early on or they had a gut
feeling they were getting screwed for years before this all came out. Either
way, a shitty place to be in but not new or uncommon with cut-throat
founder/investor types.

They should go found companies themselves! Get a big ol' piece of the pie!

------
Rainymood
It's a dick move, but surprisingly legal. If A then B, so ... if not A then
not B. He will make bank with this company but I wonder if people still want
to work with him in the future, I guess so but who am I to judge?

~~~
raizinho
The logical equivalent of if A then B is its contrapositive, if not B then not
A, not its inverse, if not A then not B.

------
jonthepirate
I was Taso's roommate on Ramona st in Palo Alto for 6 months back when he
started his company with his founder who was familiar with running a
consulting company. It's really the ultimate arbitrage - take a cut of a
kagillion foreigner's hourly pay to enrich yourself. Good for him. One day he
sort of disappeared and I never heard from him again. Glad to see he's doing
well.

------
lbatx
Well, if you want any further insight into the CEO, check out Toptal's
investment page:
[https://www.toptal.com/investors](https://www.toptal.com/investors).

He minces no words and comes off quite aggressively. Very much a "my way or
the highway" tone to that page.

They seem sort of like StackOverflow or Basecamp from a bootstrap perspective,
without the warm fuzzy feeling you get from interacting with either of those
companies.

~~~
skim_milk
I worked at a startup company for a year in the Midwest that was in the exact
same situation, growing 50% YOY with only a little pocket change for speed
funding all owner by the founders.

The founders had the same exact idea, founders own 100%, employees own
nothing, and they wanted to tell everyone how awesome they were because of it.
Key difference was that apparently our city's chamber of commerce that had a
lot of skin in the game trying to brand themselves and did some PR work for
the founders before they ran their mouth on how wonderful their company was.
The message was, after a few edits:

You were going to be paid well but we will never put you into the golden
handcuffs our friends on the coast love. (Google "We don't coast" for context)

He sounds like an asshole but really being able to work for a privately owned
fast growing company without shitty options being paid well is pretty great in
the tech world.

~~~
lbatx
>He sounds like an asshole but really being able to work for a privately owned
fast growing company without shitty options being paid well is pretty great in
the tech world.

But not as great as working for a privately owned fast growing company with
good options and being paid well, no?

(And if not options, strictly speaking, how about profit sharing?)

Source: I run a bootstrapped software development company and everyone has
profit sharing.

~~~
mygo
Is being paid well not good enough? Companies tend to give out stock as part
of a package in lieu of all cash. If you have all you want in cold hard cash,
what’s the problem?

~~~
lbatx
>Is being paid well not good enough?

I would say no. Since the employees are one of the keys to the success of the
company, why should they not share in the additional profits above and beyond
what is planned for the year?

>Companies tend to give out stock as part of a package in lieu of all cash.

Some do. In my experience, it's been about 50/50\. Startups obviously tend to
lean more toward equity and lower cash, while larger companies pay well and
ofter options or RSUs.

I pay market and do profit sharing.

>If you have all you want in cold hard cash, what’s the problem?

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. If you make a good salary, would
you turn down even more money?

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> _Since the employees are one of the keys to the success of the company, why
> should they not share in the additional profits above and beyond what is
> planned for the year?_

That's a pretty peculiar viewpoint. If you went to a restaurant, ordered and
paid for a burger, received your order with a bite taken out of it, and the
cook said " _Well, I worked really hard to make the hamburger that you ordered
and it turned out extra well. That means I deserve a bite._ " when you
complained, would you find that reasonable?

(It's not even entirely hypothetical:
[https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/746600105/1-in-4-food-
deliver...](https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/746600105/1-in-4-food-delivery-
drivers-admit-to-eating-your-food) )

~~~
lbatx
Your analogy falls apart. Re-read what I wrote: "share in the additional
profits above and beyond". Let's say we expect to make $1MM for the year. We
need to keep a reserve to pay people when we are between contracts, rent,
taxes, SAAS, etc. I then work out I can pay 5 people $100K each (this is an
example, not actual). If we then make $1.2MM per year (for any number of
reasons) how is it peculiar that the employees should share in the extra
$200K? That's nothing like your analogy.

~~~
mygo
As far as financial accounting obligations go, shareholders should certainly
share in the extra $200K. Profits are part of owner’s equity.

So the simple question is, if an employee does not own any part of the
company, are they entitled to a share of the extra profits?

If the employees want to be entitled to a share of the extra profits then one
obvious solution is that they need to become shareholders. Normally a share of
owner’s equity is given in exchange for money. Instead of buying those shares
with money, that’s what startup employees are doing when they take a lower
cash pay in exchange for shares in a company that is unable to pay them full
price.

I see your argument, but we’re describing a situation where a full-priced if
not handsomely paid employee takes zero risk with a steady “what they want in
cold hard cash” salary and then when the company does extra well they are
entitled to a share of the upside.

I can recognize that giving employees a share of profits may very well be what
businesses need to do in 2019 to recruit and retain the best talent. But their
salary is what was agreed upon for the work to be done. So let’s call it for
what it is — it’s something nice to do. It may even be a talent-recruiting and
talent-retention tool that gives your business a competitive edge. But it’s
not a financial obligation.

------
DevKoala
The company I work for is in the same situation, but no complaints from me
since I understood early that I need to ask for high salary raises along with
the option rewards, and not let the execs convince me to just take more
options.

There have been talks of an IPO or acquisition for years, and hopefully, it
happens, but they feel a bit like a carrot on a stick; the revenue goal for
going IPO is always increasing.

------
hn_throwaway_99
Man, this guy is a sociopath. For everyone (including the CEO) saying "but
they all knew what they were getting into", consider why would the CEO even
bother putting those terms in there (e.g. the equity on conversion to a
corporation - which according to comments in this thread he specifically told
employees he would do -, the convertible note terms, etc.) unless it was
specifically to deceive the investors and employees.

If that's the way he treats folks who _are supposed to be on the same side_ ,
I'd hate to see how he treats his enemies.

------
hollaur
Regardless, absolutely terrible experience here myself.

------
neilv
Related discussion yesterday, including thread on a theinformation.com
article: 114 points by ivanech 1 day ago "Toptal sues co-founder Breanden
Beneschott for fraud (pacermonitor.com)":
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20708596](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20708596)

------
aylmao
Is striking not an option for Toptal's employees? I imagine, especially at the
size the company is operating, it'd probably be a very effective way for
employees to make their voice heard and have negotiating leverage.

Plus, this seems to apply to all employees. Not even the co-founder had
shares— this guy seems to be alone at the top.

~~~
Igelau
Probably not. It sounds like they're scattered all over the place, with only
heavily monitored company channels to contact one another (e.g. the Slack
channel that shames people for spelling and grammar mistakes). There's no
water cooler.

------
larrik
How does he avoid it being a Sole Proprietorship and being on the hook
personally for any lawsuits against it?

~~~
nostrademons
You can have a one-person corporation where the founder is the sole
shareholder, officer, and employee and still be protected from legal
liability. A very large proportion of LLCs are in exactly this category, as
well as a decent number of S- and C-corps.

You just have to file the appropriate articles of incorporation, continue
paying your taxes, and make sure that company business is done in the company
name out of the company bank accounts while personal business is done in your
name out of your personal bank account.

~~~
henryfjordan
Don't forget throwing yourself a little "shareholders meeting" every year!

~~~
koolba
Its common to do that right before the company funded annual holiday party.

~~~
Igelau
Where you get recklessly drunk and wake up next to the CEO's spouse!

------
paggle
I can’t feel bad for the employees. They signed knowing they weren’t getting
any stock. What’s wrong with Netflix style all-cash compensation?

~~~
seattle_spring
Netflix offers $400k - $600k salaries to engineers to be competitive with
total compensation packages of companies that offer part salary and part
stock.

Is there evidence that Toptal offered similar salaries? I wouldn't at all be
surprised if they were closer to the $150k range, which is _not_ competitive.

~~~
paggle
If it’s not competitive then don’t take the job. An engineer should be able to
evaluate the difference between Toptal and the other offers they have, with
the caveat that stock is hard to predict (the Silicon Valley mantra that
“equity is worthless” might lead one to choose Toptal at $150K over another
startup with $140K + stock). I highly doubt that anyone with a Netflix offer
chose Toptal instead, if they did it was a blunder.

------
m0zg
"No stock for employees" in a startup actually sounds great to me. The
approximate value of that part of the package is about zero, but few people
realize that, and a lot of employees get taken advantage of when startups
offer lower pay in exchange for minuscule (and dwindling through dilution)
equity. Receiving competitive amounts of hard cash would be better for 99.9%
of the people.

~~~
seattle_spring
Is there any evidence that Toptal offered a competitive salary in relation to
total compensation packages elsewhere? A good senior engineer can get $300k+
at FB or Google. Most startups would offer $160-$200k plus equity. If Toptal
"wasn't playing that game," then surely they were offering $300k salaries?

~~~
m0zg
I'm not saying it did. I'm saying that, unlike a typical startup employee,
Toptal employees knew exactly what they were getting into, no cap tables,
dilutions, liquidation preferences, or other bullshit. That seems fair to me.

------
throw03172019
How do the investors not have stock? Convertible note which never converted?

~~~
nopzor
yes exactly.

------
hmahncke
How is "all of Toptal’s stock [is] in the hands of one person" when Toptal
"attracted funding from well-known investors including Andreessen Horowitz."
Doesn't funding from a16z typically end up with a16z owning stock?

[unfortunately can't read the whole article behind the paywall]

~~~
tvladeck
My guess (and this is just a guess, as I too can't read the article), is that
the investment was a convertible note, and they actually paid back the debt
instead of allowing it to convert into equity. But I am no expert and I don't
know the facts — I was just wondering the same thing and this was the scenario
I landed on as a plausible hypothesis.

~~~
pflugerc
Same guess. The investors either 1) got there principal back with no interest
or 2) they still have there money in and it only get a value upon raising
money or a sale. Likely it’s #1. Investors didn’t get screwed. They just
didn’t win.

------
0x8BADF00D
Not really a big deal tbh. Instead of stock ask for as high of a salary as
possible.

------
dang
This was posted yesterday, but the article was hard-paywalled. We asked The
Information if they would unlock it for HN readers, as they have been doing
recently (e.g.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20630974](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20630974),
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20423483](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20423483)).
They agreed, so now that HN readers can actually read the article, we rolled
the clock back on this discussion.

Edit: sorry, I pasted in the wrong link so it didn't work right away. It
should work now, meaning everyone who clicks on the title above should get to
read the article.

~~~
nemetroid
What does "hard-paywalled" mean? It's still paywalled to me, even though the
link has utm_source=hackernews and the browser sent a Referer header.

~~~
dang
It means there are no workarounds.

I think I swapped in the wrong link—sorry. Should be fixed now.

------
s3nnyy
paywall

------
rolltiide
He kept all his equity, we should be congratulating him for his acumen and
prowess in negotiating this so smoothly.

Why are we glorifying giving a fraction of a fraction of a percent to
employees who are going to be further diluted or totally zeroed out in any
exit?

Why are we treating equity in other people’s hands as validation?

Offering convertible debt that converts into services or something else is a
way of financing.

You don't need to aspire for a bunch of crunchbase entries.

There was a time when I thought different like “oh thats not a real seed round
if the investors didnt do a share investment, or thats not a real series A”
but now I know differently and primarily take a dim view on preferred shares,
liquidity preferences and expensive capital - when acting as a founder or
employee. Many ideas are more profitable exits for founders if there were no
liquidity preferences.

------
bdcravens
Meta: this site seems to be paywalled from the first article. How does this
get upvoted to the front page? Is this some great site that I'm missing out on
that people are subscribed to, or are people just smashing the upvote without
reading the article?

~~~
rahuldottech
I recall seeing a comment of dang's wherein he mentions that this site
regularly disabled paywalls for visitor coming from HN.

~~~
bdcravens
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20708064](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20708064)
is the unpaywalled version.

~~~
dsego
I still get a paywall.

~~~
bdcravens
Odd - it worked at first for me, but I guess they cut it off pretty quickly.

------
huac
[https://www.theinformation.com/go/4146dbb37f](https://www.theinformation.com/go/4146dbb37f)
bypasses paywall

~~~
tlb
URL changed to that (from [https://www.theinformation.com/articles/at-booming-
toptal-no...](https://www.theinformation.com/articles/at-booming-toptal-no-
stock-for-employees-or-investors))

------
oh_sigh
How exactly did Breanden Beneschott end up with zero shares? Was he just not
paying attention or what?

