
Hackers with no equity in company: good or bad? - prime0196
Does YC frown upon applicants who have hackers on their team but hold not equity stake?  How should they be included in the application.
======
anamax
I trust that you're not going to complain if they quit your project for a
project that does offer them equity.

FWIW, no one is indespensible in a startup; some are merely harder to replace
than others. I'll bet that "original idea" guys are getting equity even though
they cease to be indespensible.

~~~
hga
"no one is indespensible in a startup"

I have been in too many startups that died because they lost or failed to
recruit one particular person---or in the case of LMI survived (for a while)
because I recruited one indispensable classmate who made their LAMBDA
processor work---to believe this.

A reverse example would be the receiving clerk at Intel who single-handily
almost killed them as mentioned in Chringley's book.

In my experience, just about every founder of a startup is "indispensable"
after you shake things out a bit---make a single mistake with any of them, and
you're not likely to survive.

~~~
anamax
The fact that a startup dies when someone leaves doesn't imply that said
person was indespensible.

~~~
hga
I am relying on "inside information".

I suppose that means this is an "appeal to authority", but, still, if a person
critical to making software work is gone, and the company fails specifically
because they can't make their software work, what else am I to assume?

(Needless to say, sometimes I've been that person.)

~~~
anamax
I'll buy that a company can be set up so it is dependent. Outside of some
special cases (subset of technology and relationships), I think that doing so
is usually unnecessary and the "indespensable" label is typically untrue,
especially when it comes to biz folk.

------
rms
Would it hurt to throw them a couple percent?

~~~
prime0196
What would be the reason for "throwing" them an equity stake? Many people
believe this makes a person more dedicated to the company, which is absolutely
false.

~~~
pg
Then why do you think startups have such a thing as options? Do you think
everyone else is just mistaken in believing that equity matters in startups?

~~~
prime0196
Equity should be given to individuals who are critical to the success of your
company, individuals who are indispensable. Too many companies give equity to
individuals who can be replaced once the company becomes self-sustaining.
Equity shouldn't be given to "good" coders just because they contributed in
the beginning. Equity should be saved for the "great/exceptional" coders that
you may attract as your business grows.

~~~
pg
The empirical evidence suggests startups don't work that way. All the most
successful startups had great techical people from the beginning. If you don't
have good technical people at the start, you never reach the point where you
attract them.

~~~
prime0196
I don't dispute that. What if you have great technical people in the beginning
who happen to have no equity stake? A talented developer is a talented
developer (regardless of how they are compensated)...equity doesn't make them
any better, does it?

~~~
pg
If they're de facto cofounders and they have no equity, then either you're
cheating them (and they don't know they should have equity) or they don't have
much faith in the project (and prefer salary to equity).

------
sama
you will not get accepted.

------
cperciva
I'd list such people under "suckers". YC doesn't provide enough money to pay
anyone a decent salary, so anyone who isn't getting equity is being short-
changed.

~~~
prime0196
They are being compensated, not looking for YC to do that.

------
electric
I think hackers are a critical component of technical teams and therefore
should be rewarded with equity/options.

------
davidw
The verdict: "bad" - but what did you expect from this site?

