Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Pinterest also didn't enact that until they reached a multi-billion $ valuation and hundreds of employees. They did it when they already knew they could handle turnover. Earlier stage companies might need longer.

But then it's hard to set a definite timeframe. What you want is to incentivize sticking together as an effective team to reach a point of maturity, to maximize the chances of getting there and thus the options being worth anything. It's probably more about size and valuation. That's what was nice about effectively tying it to IPOs (when IPOs happened earlier). Going public was a decision that the board made when they company was "ready".

I think the reason why pinterest did this was as a vanguard of what you see here in the article now. There are still many companies that are in pinterest's position and do not do what they did.

The engineer market in SF right now is very highly heated, and this kind of incentive makes an offer from pinterest far more appealing. That and people are starting to compare notes and make articles on medium and others really spelling it out is probably hurting recruiting and this is coming out as a response.

Why should I care more about the company and "turnover" than the people whom the current system gives an incentive to fire so they get screwed under current equity regulations?

You should care about both, but if the company fails then your options won't be worth anything.

But you're saying that I should care more about the company. I'm asking why.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact