Understanding Startup Offers

https://withcompound.com/manual-company-equity/understanding-startup-offers

by medtner • 5 years ago

196 112 5 years ago

keeptrying2• 5 years ago

These set of questions are very thorough and will help you avoid 80% or more of the bad situations. I had to figure out all thsi on my own and most startups won’t answer these questions even after getting an offer.

Some more question you might want to ask: - is there a double trigger clause? (If not then the founder can restart your vesting after an acquisition and do other nasty things.)

- can I exercise my options after beating while I’m at the company. (You’ll be surprised but I’ve seen companies that don’t allow you to exercise while you’re employed there which means you can kiss qsbs goodbye and you can’t leave comoany if it gets too big else you’ll lose the options)

- can I sell my exercised stock on the secondary market? (Some companies don’t allow this)

95% of people don’t ask these questions and can get screwed.

throwawaysea2• 5 years ago

What does “beating” mean here? Was that a typo, maybe for “vesting”?

keeptrying2• 5 years ago

Yes :)

qqtt2• 5 years ago

It would be interesting to see some analysis comparing pre-IPO offers versus standard FAANG-style engineering offers and see what the monetary difference actually is.

In the not-so-distant past, start ups were pretty much the only avenue to secure a multiple-million dollar personal liquidity event, in the off chance you join a successful start up, work your tail off, and the company gets to a point where that exit happened (which was and still is rare).

But nowadays, with software development offers being what they are are large public companies with outstanding growth prospects, the argument that you need to join a start up to fast track earning millions is pretty much out the window. Not only do people who are working at large stable companies like Google & Facebook have the generous perks and large company work life balance stability behind them - they are also soundly beating almost all "successful" start up offers in terms of compensation over the long term.

I would love to see some real life practical numbers with start up offers at different stages of funding and how that would really compare to simply working at Google or Facebook over the same time horizon.

It seems the only reasons to work at a start up these days are if you really really love building products, want to wear many different hats, are frustrated by the pace of big companies, and are stifled by the big company processes that dominate the day to day life working at these companies.

Compelling reasons to work for a start up for sure, but compensation is not even in the top 10 reason to join a start up anymore, IMO.

enra2• 5 years ago

The challenging part about equity that every company is different, takes bit different path and has different chances of success.

My anecdotal example that I don't know anyone who made massive/post-economic money by joining a public company. You can probably make six figures easily, and potentially low 7 figures in some years. The only people I know who have mode 8 or 9 figures are people who have joined startups early or relatively early before the IPO, and the startup became a $20-100B company.

Seed stage, as one of the first senior engineers, you might get 2%-0.5% equity. At $20M valuation (common YC valuation at the moment). That's $400k-100k value vesting over 4 years (which might sound low compared to FAANG offers). The point is the upside potential, not the value. FAANG companies might grow 5x in 5 years. Startups can grow much more. That's why the whole VC market exists.

Hitting $1B means the company valuation went up 50x, hitting $10B means 500x, hitting $100B means 5000x. So your initial offer could be worth several millions to hundreds of millions. Even if you join later, when the company is valued $500M-$1B, you might still get 50-100x upside.

The math is more complicated since usually companies raise multiple rounds which then dilutes the existing shareholders. Roughly 20% at seed/series a, and then less after that.

qqtt2• 5 years ago

With things like dilution mattering and stock options being popular vehicles for early stage start up it would be really interesting and elucidating to have practical examples to compare against.

It's easy to understand a FAANG style offer in this context.

You join Google in 2017, you get RSUs pegged at 800$ a share valuation, about 150k$ a year vesting, by 2021 those shares are worth 2800$ so you've earned about 2.1 million (not exactly as taxes come into play).

You join AirBNB in 2017, valued at 30 billion, you get a similar offer, fast forward to today and AirBNB is now worth 100 billion, you might have made 2 million (again, not exactly, considering taxes and potential dilution). And AirBNB is one of Y Combinator's most successful start ups/exits.

From some quick google searching - there are thousands of Y Combinator companies and only ~29 are worth one billion or more. Of those billion, they are all at this time late stage and trying to guess which up and coming Y Combinator company will be next to crack 1 billion is a very risky endeavour.

How does the tax implication of stock options really impact your net gain, and does that practically move the needle for a comparison against a standard FAANG offer?

Would be interesting to look at some cold hard numbers. Absolutely joining a 20M valuation YC company and sticking around until it grows to 1B would be incredibly lucrative - but how lucrative in a practical sense, given real offers? Dilution? Tax implications? Would love to see this analysis.

quokkafriend3• 5 years ago

My equity grants as a non-eng (but involved in prod dev) have ranged from 0.05% to 0.6% over the course of 10 years in startups (age 25-35). All Series A to Series B.

My take is that unless you are very good at judging leadership teams and company prospects, that joining a FAANG or a Series C+ scale-up (and even that takes thoughtful research and luck) is the better play.

Early stage at my past grant levels has to hit a unicorn valuation for the equity to match FAANG packages. I'm not even sure a $1B exit is enough after dilution, investor preferences, and god forbid down/flat rounds. Certainly not at the grants that I started at in my career.

Plus keep in mind that FAANG stock also appreciates. I see some folks not accounting for that growth and only startup valuation growth. Comp packages for mid level ENG and PMs are 400-500k / yr, not even including appreciation!

akomtu• 5 years ago

A typical 4-year vesting plan at 500k/year gives 2M in "nominal" dollars. 2x that to account for stock market growth, 2x for work life balance (startups demand 2x more of your time than FANG), 3x for dilution and other startup shenanigans, 5x for the risk (how many C series get bought for 1B within 5 years?), and you need a 60x2M offer from a startup to just match FANG. 120M looks outrageous only because it's fake money: 95% of the time you won't get anything.

fatnoah2• 5 years ago

I spent the better part of 17 years at startups, with grants ranging from 0.2% all the way to 1% (VP Eng in a Series C+). The latter exited, but options were worth $0 due to liquidation preferences. I did get a cash bonus equal to about 2x my salary, so that was nice...it was also about the same as the sum of my last two stock vests (i.e. 6 months) at the FAANG I'm currently at, and whose stock price has doubled since I joined. I currently make 4X what I made at the height of my startup career.

Unless I'm coming in hot with good equity and an imminent IPO OR I don't need/want the money at all, I can't see going to back to startup life. (I also wouldn't trade that startup experience away, either)

hinkley2• 5 years ago

Maybe it’s like people using their tax refund as a savings strategy. If you’re good with your money then fixing your withholding and increasing your savings rate nets you more money in the long term. But you have to have self control to save the money instead of just fighting temptation once a year.

jollybean2• 5 years ago

It's nary impossible to judge founders, even investors are not very good.

I think that 'heat' is probably the best way to judge: if they are growing, they have a good product, customers like it, and they're not paying substantially more for customer acquisition - and it's a large market - then that's a good sign.

jdavis7034• 5 years ago

I don’t know about Facebook, but my friends at Google seem to have terrible work life balance. Seems like they only get a breather when they’re between projects.

nostrademons4• 5 years ago

Google in general has pretty good work/life balance.

I think the challenge is that you're responsible for launching on a feature team at Google, and the lead up to a launch has a ton of work that needs to be done often under tight deadline pressure, plus the codebase is crazy complex. If you're a self-motivated, detail-oriented, slightly obsessive individual of the type Google loves to hire, you're not going to rest until it's all done.

Infrastructure/logging/analysis/reliability teams have it much better at Google, in terms of work-life balance, but the tradeoff is that it's harder to justify your impact when it comes to promotion time.

nostrademons4• 5 years ago

"In the not-so-distant past, start ups were pretty much the only avenue to secure a multiple-million dollar personal liquidity event"

I'm actually not sure this is true, and wondering if this was reporting bias. When a startup exits for a billion and all the employees get rich, you hear about it on the news, and you can do the equity calculation yourself based on public funding round press releases. When a big company quietly gives a multi-million-$ comp package to a valued employee, they have zero incentive to share that news with the rest of the world.

My wife grew up in Silicon Valley, and somehow all of her friend's parents have large real estate holdings. These were people active in the 70s-90s, big company employees, no exits. But there was one guy who had a beautiful house in the Saratoga foothills with an artificial waterfall between his two swimming pools; "Oh, his dad was a rainmaker at Intel." Or another friend of the family who had made some key inventions at HP, and retired early. Or the innkeeper we met in Alaska who had simply worked big companies in Silicon Valley, no exits, saved his money, but then when he turned 40 he bought a sailboat, sailed around the world with his family, then when he reached Alaska bought 2 old warehouses and converted them into a B&B.

noodle2• 5 years ago

I think it's true if you add the caveat "only avenue for an average person". Not everyone gets the big liquidity event in the startup game, but also very few people actually get multimillion dollar comp packages at well established post-IPO companies despite how much it seems to get discussed here.

dasil0032• 5 years ago

Considering the vast swathes of 1.5M homes across the Bay Area that were <$100k in the mid-70s, you didn't need to be anywhere near a millionaire to making a killing in real estate if you've been here 50 years.

esonderegger• 5 years ago

One of the things I rarely see mentioned when discussing career prospects of startups vs large corporations is how different their hiring filters are.

If you are self-taught, lacking credentials, and don't live in a major market, it can be difficult to get in the door at a FAANG. Whereas start-ups can be much more likely to take a chance on someone with a non-conventional background.

So for some of us, large corporations aren't even an option until after we've taken that startup job and the startup has done well enough that people have heard of it.

ctvo2• 5 years ago

If you are self-taught, lacking credentials, and don't live in a major market, it can be difficult to get in the door at a FAANG. Whereas start-ups can be much more likely to take a chance on someone with a non-conventional background.

Don't self select out of these jobs. I've been an interviewer at FAANGs. We take talent where we can and count ourselves lucky.

Our recruiters call everyone given enough time. Reach out to one directly on LinkedIn for an even better chance at an initial screening call. Ask for a referral from someone already working there in your wider network. Ask for a referral from Blind. Ask for a referral from HN.

From there it's your ability to pass the interview, not any set of credentials (different thread please on the interview process).

leetcrew• 5 years ago

I just went through the job search again, and I found the exact opposite to be true. for context, I went to a regionally-known (at best) state university and have just a few years of experience at a small company you've probably never heard of. so not quite "self-taught" but pretty far from what you'd think of as a the typical FAANG employee.

I applied to at least twenty roles at startups and small/medium-sized companies that seemed like a good fit for my skills and wrote thoughtful cover letters for each one. not a single one of those employers responded, not even to reject.

I also applied to a couple FAANGs, thinking it was a pretty long shot. but I ended up getting two on-sites, one of which I converted to an offer. there's definitely some truth to what people say about the unreasonable/irrelevant DS/algo problems, but I found it comforting to know for once what I was actually being assessed on.

not sure whether I got lucky with the FAANGs, unlucky with the smaller companies, or what, but just thought I'd share that anecdote. not the outcome I was expecting at the beginning of the process.

throw1231231234• 5 years ago

This has reverted in the last decade. Albeit the competition for companies with big names like hard makes it virtually impossible to pass the filter without a referral.

joshuamorton3• 5 years ago

Dan Luu wrote about this a few years ago: https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/ (from 2015, but has been updated a bit since then).

I think the big challenge is that accurately evaluating a startup offer is very, very difficult. And it can be really, really contextual. As an example, I know someone who worked at a company that went public fairly recently, and their result was vastly worse than the EV of a big company, but they also had a below average startup EV because they left the company and didn't purchase all of their options when they left.

With Google or Facebook, the question is really just stock growth and grant sizes.

With startups its growth and grant sizes, yes, and the expected type of liquidity event(s) and the time horizon on that event and your plans and company culture over that time horizon, also any additional funding rounds can markedly affect things and...

mkhizar53• 5 years ago

Check out Levels.fyi, also their last pay report has a bunch of (then) startups at least for new grad: https://levels.fyi/2020/

siruncledrew• 5 years ago

IMO you have be lucky in both cases to really strike it rich.

Choosing a startup with this kind of potential is insanely hard to do, and if you get lucky then the explosive growth of immediately becoming wealthy is what redeems it. But the key is choosing the needle in the haystack. It's harder than being an investor. An investor can make 100 bets hoping one works out, but an employee is only deciding on 1 place.

Working at a FAANGM company is a safer chance at hoping to climb the corporate ladder and reach a cushiony role through steady work over time. Essentially someone is hoping to ride a steady incline up from $150k to $300k+. Granted it's not the exciting casino-like feeling that a startup exit provides.

throw1231231234• 5 years ago

I dont think the rewards of the corpo ladder make a lot of sense. An L9 at Google, someone with 15+ YOE and rocking the perf game for over a decade makes less than what any series B to Series E SWE makes.

alfiedotwtf• 5 years ago

It seems the only reasons to work at a start up these days are if you really really love building products, want to wear many different hats, are frustrated by the pace of big companies, and are stifled by the big company processes that dominate the day to day life working at these companies.

I can't believe this paragraph was written with a dismissive negative tone

toomuchtodo3• 5 years ago

It would be helpful to explain how an early employee (whether still employed or separated from the company) is able to obtain the following documentation from their company to demonstrate QSBS treatment to the IRS (or if a letter indicating such from a finance department or the CFO would suffice):

Even though reporting QSBS is simple, you should still keep financial statements and other supporting documents to support your claim. Detailed balance sheets for the company from its incorporation through the close of your investment will show if it has more than $50 million in aggregate gross assets. Equity documents (type, date, etc.) are also important to demonstrate that your investment qualifies. [1]

[1] https://withcompound.com/manual-company-equity/qsbs

ganoushoreilly• 5 years ago

This is a good point. A lot of founders seem to want to protect or hide this information. Usually that's a red flag for me, but it's common. I think it needs to me more normalized and formalized.

Dwolb5• 5 years ago

If you’re up for QSBS treatment, I’d recommend to hire a CPA, financial advisor, and possibly a lawyer.

One of those three can send over a letter to the CEO or CFO to share relevant information. It’s usually already prepared for equity or debt financing rounds and possibly periodic reporting.

toomuchtodo3• 5 years ago

Appreciate the advice. Are there cut offs similar to an 83b election? Or can QSBS still apply if you're near the end of the five year wait period and you took no action at grant and exercise events (besides what you normally might for an ISO grant)? Asking so I'm not wasting the time of the involved.

synergy20• 5 years ago

Chatted with some early-stage-then-IPO-ed engineers yesterday, I asked "aren't your company IPO-ed and you should have retired?", the answer is, after multiple dilutions in rounds of fund raises, his options ended up worth just a few thousands, not useful at all.

There is no way the startup you have been working for will keep your interest a priority, and you never know if your share will reach zero in the process of multi-stage VC rounds.

Unless you're the founders who will always be at the negotiation table for new rounds, I saw no point to work for startups, not at all.

clpm4j3• 5 years ago

I think the main advantage of working at a startup is when you're relatively young and inexperienced - you're being compensated in the experience and accelerated job titles that you can then leverage to ramp up your career by joining other companies or starting your own. Getting an exit is a cherry on top.

dhd4152• 5 years ago

In my experience, getting a FAANG job accelerates your career as well or better than titling up quickly in a startup. Having a FANG position on your resume is more of a known quantity for future potential employers than being promoted quickly in an unknown startup.

freewilly10403• 5 years ago

I don't think people at established companies care about gaudy job titles at startups. Being a director at some chaotic mess of a company (and much of the time that is what startups are) doesn't signal competence.

The opposite can be true, when IC's at startups who have not truly learned their craft jump to management too early.

majormajor2• 5 years ago

I don't think startup job titles are worth much but they can be massive skill accelerators.

If you're in the first 5 years of your career you'll have more opportunity to learn more technologies at a small startup where everyone has to do everything than at a FAANG (especially compared to Google where you will only learn the Google internal stack).

You can leverage that into a much higher paying job in a way that you wouldn't be able to leverage experience at a mid-level company.

Hermitian909• 5 years ago

Even this is becoming less valuable as bigger companies start to invest in training and mentorship.

Three people I know how graduated college recently working at big companies have senior engineers dedicating multiple hours a week to mentorship and a lot of learning opportunities. They're growing much faster than junior engineers thrown into the deep end IMO.

The faster title advancement doesn't mean much IMO. Working at a big company I can say that outside of a certain group of other big companies we just don't trust titles to have any correlation to abilities.

jollybean2• 5 years ago

This is worth something.

I worked at a blue chip and we hired young devs with 2 years experience at major banks and they were clueless. I don't think they actually did anything. Worse, they didn't realize that they didn't know how to do anything. It was bizarre.

That said, it makes it hard to work in a normal corp, you have to find a special place to work where at least the pace is 'just right' i.e. you get to actually do thing, but they're not going to push you into the ground with too much work and stress.

ctvo2• 5 years ago

Chatted with some early-stage-then-IPO-ed engineers yesterday, I asked "aren't your company IPO-ed and you should have retired?", the answer is, after multiple dilutions in rounds of fund raises, his options ended up worth just a few thousands, not useful at all.

Assuming series a engineering role, .30 - .50%, even after dilution, for an IPO'd company, we're assuming 1BN+, to walk away with a "few thousands" is hard to calculate.

A few hundred thousands is more likely (taxes) and even that isn't a worthwhile trade-off for most folks. It'd need to be in the millions to make it more attractive than big tech at the moment.

sys_64738• 5 years ago

Moral of story: avoid startups.

fasteddie• 5 years ago

This is a great, clean explainer.

Series B seems to be the sweet spot to me if you would like to avoid working at a FAANG but want similar EV in your comp package, assuming you are decently good at guessing winners.

At that point the company is meaningfully de-risked but the equity offers are still pretty good for mid-career folks that you end up with millions in a good exit.

xtracto2• 5 years ago

I've come to prefer post-Series A startups. In my experience Series B tended to be the moment where the startup beings to establish "controls" and bureaucracy for things. It is when you start setting OKRs, it is when you start having 2 or more tiers of mid-management and "policy documents" start flying around.

For me, post Series A is the sweet spot when there are exciting problems to solve and you still have good leeway to make things happen without too much red tape.

rdli• 5 years ago

The post says "an alternative career accelerated through learning, wealth, and reputation" ... and then doesn't talk about anything other than equity.

The article says "Equity will be your largest driver of compensation at a startup." as the rationalization of why it focuses on that.

Based on my past experiences, I would say that the learning, network, and reputational effects resulted in far more wealth to me over the medium-term than any incremental change in equity or salary.

mcgingras2• 5 years ago

I have an offer that vests over 6 years with a 1.5 year cliff. Is that normal? I'm used to 4 years 1 year cliff, but the CEO said that 1.5/6 are common for companies that "want employees who care about the long term"

matheist• 5 years ago

I've never heard of 1.5/6 being a thing. Would be a red flag for me but of course I only have the context you mentioned.

Refresher grants could also motivate employees to stick around for the long term!

devnulll2• 5 years ago

No, I don't believe that's normal. That sounds like a CEO trying to take advantage of the labor force.

mcgingras2• 5 years ago

Thanks everyone, that's what I was thinking as well, but I'm fairly new to startups so I wasn't sure.

freewilly10403• 5 years ago

4 year vest, 1 year cliff is the standard, and even that is going away at some places.

An employer who wants to keep you will demonstrate that by compensating you well and giving you an opportunity to augment your skills.

This offerer sounds like someone who has experienced turnover problems and has decided that it's everyone else's fault.

majormajor2• 5 years ago

No, have had multiple recent better offers than that. They're trying to rip you off.

If they want to keep you motivated for the long term even if value isn't increasing rapidly then they can do bonuses, refreshers, etc.

dudul• 5 years ago

Never heard of such a schedule, and I've worked for startups for the past 15 years.

jdavis7034• 5 years ago

Never heard of this or received an offer like this. Are you based in the US? Because if you are it sounds like you and your coworkers took a bad deal.

anamax• 5 years ago

[1] What is the CEO's cliff and vesting? [2] Longer vesting means more stock, around 50% in this case, for companies who want employees long-term. (The relevant measure is stock/year, not total stock.) [3] Ask the CEO to name three comparable companies with such terms.

If there's a hostile reaction to [3], you just learned something valuable. If there's a neutral reaction, you can say that you're evaluating the CEO's ability to negotiate and persuade, which is true.

Interviews and offer negotiations go both ways.

bagels2• 5 years ago

It's common for companies that want to exploit employees and not reward them for their contributions.

wilsynet• 5 years ago

And 1/4 is for companies that care about compensating employees fairly, while adhering to market norms.

Run away. This CEO wants to hold your equity hostage.

michaelcampbell• 5 years ago

"want employees who care about the long term"

Run away. Next thing they'll start in on how they're a family.

bruce343434• 5 years ago

Addendum: Understanding American Startup Offers

lankinen• 5 years ago

Great post!

bbno4• 5 years ago

Is there one of these but for UK?

destitude• 5 years ago

What happens to those that run into the 10 year limit for exercising their options? If there is no hope for liquidation event and you've been their for 9 years and haven't exercised your options it seems like you might as well leave, especially if there will be a huge tax burden to exercise them.

jdavis7034• 5 years ago

A good place to start is asking your supervisor or HR person what can be done. For example you might be able to take out a loan or the company might be able to repurchase the stock.

entangledqubit• 5 years ago

The questions included here are good to see.

For a more complete guide, my preferred document these days is the Holloway Guide ( https://www.holloway.com/g/equity-compensation ). Though now I have to add a warning that there's a slightly annoying attempt to get your contact info and it has gotten rather long...

zuhayeer• 5 years ago

This excerpt is particularly pretty nice to get a sense for equity ranges: https://www.holloway.com/g/equity-compensation/sections/typi...

_moof• 5 years ago

Don't early exercise.

Here's why. Yes, there are potential tax advantages; you avoid having to deal with AMT, which is significant. But the tradeoff is that you've thrown away the essential advantage that an option gives you: the ability to travel back in time and purchase stock with perfect knowledge of what it will do in the future. Why on earth would you give that up? An option lets you wait years with zero risk and then decide whether you should've invested before that time went by. That is a superpower.

You might be thinking, well, I feel really bullish about this company, so I'm going to go ahead and early exercise. But here's the thing: most startups fail. It is extremely unlikely that your options will be worth anything in the future. So unless you're an unnaturally talented investor—and you aren't, you're a worker bee—you won't be able to beat those odds. And the great thing is, you don't have to—because you have options, the whole point of which is to eliminate risk.

Don't throw away your time machine.

dpeck• 5 years ago

this is highly dependent on the strike price.

Though if you're an early enough employee to be getting a strike price that you can exercise without any worry (on the order of $x00) then you probably should be getting stock directly vs options anyway.

thoughtpeddler• 5 years ago

I think this applies in most cases. That said, many more startups are now bootstrapped, and don't go on to raise beyond a Seed or Series A, if at all.

If you're an early employee at one of those startups (with a very low strike price), and know that the company has a strong balance sheet, I would early exercise to lock in the long-term capital gains tax rate.

This is even more true if the startup has novel IP, which could be worth a healthy sum even if the business were to go kaput.

Also, as others have said, if startups weren't lucrative, VC as an asset class wouldn't exist at all. It's rare, but making millions as an early employee is something that definitely happens.

bagels2• 5 years ago

Early exercised, do not regret.

It really depends on the health of the company, risk tolerance, how long you plan to stay, and your strike price.

Paying a few thousand to exercise early to avoid hundreds of thousands in taxes later was worth it for me.

cco3• 5 years ago

Penny wise and pound foolish in my experience for early stage startups.

Don't rush into it obviously, take a few weeks/months inside to get a feel for financials, the business/team etc, but early exercise if you can afford it.

Early exercising may risk tens to low hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the upside is hundreds of thousands to millions through long term cap gains and/or QSBS tax savings.

It also protects you from losing your options if you leave the company, two years into your tenure you might want to leave, but the strike to fair market value spread might have grown so much that you can't afford it in your post termination exercise window.

As always, super dependent upon your particular deal, your financial position going into it etc, do your own math and risk tolerance, but I wish someone had shown me the numbers before I joined my first startup.

m0zg• 5 years ago

Having been through this meat grinder, people do please run the numbers on that "equity" you're getting. Founders make it sound like 0.1% is a windfall, but it most certainly isn't, even in the unlikely event the startup succeeds.

That said, in my estimation people go to startups to do interesting things, not for the money per se. BigCo (even a FAANG) is a depressing, high politics, low productivity morass, and a lot of people (myself included) find it difficult to tolerate it for long, in spite of the higher paycheck.

As to running the numbers, there's an excellent essay by @luu that you need to read: https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/

bibabaloo• 5 years ago

I recently joined a series B startup valued at ~$200M with ~100 staff and was granted what amounts to be ~0.015% over 4 years. (So if I had all my options now they'd be worth ~$28k). Seems like that might be a bit low comparatively, have I been fleeced?

jdavis7034• 5 years ago

That seems on the low end, but not unreasonable. What’s your cash salary, how many years of experience do you have, will you get annual refreshers and what do you think are the odds you’ll exit with a unicorn valuation? Now, do the same math except with an established company to compare with. Which one pays you more? And how much do you value startup culture vs. big co culture?

exnor• 5 years ago

Would be great to see a UK version of this.

Understanding Startup Offers

Related Stories