Founders should invest time and effort to ask for more board seats. The YC doc is a good start but if you follow this to the letter you may lose control in your B or C when the B and C investor also want board seats. Also it’s important to keep in mind that there is no “standard.” Everything is always negotiable.
You could always try the startup for 1 year and see how it goes. This way you get past your cliff, and you will have a much better idea of whether or not it has a chance of becoming something. If its flopping around like a fish then you can always go to a big co. Yes it would have cost you some $$$ short term, but you would have probably learned a lot more simply by having to wear more hats. Plus its a lot of fun to build something new from the ground up.
Its unclear what Peter Thiel is supporting with this donation. This candidate is highly inconsistent. Perhaps his bet is that if this candidate is elected, it will result in chaos. A sharp, rapid upheaval will enable him to accelerate his overall agenda. Given his net worth he is insulated from the negative effects this chaos will have on everyone else. Given his net worth he, and others who support his agenda can quickly capitalize.
This is my thinking too. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that he doesn't have anything closer to a consistent policy in his platform. To be fair, there is a lot of copy-paste from standard GOP platform, but his own speeches and interviews give out the impression that he doesn't have a handle on any of them. So to think that Thiel might have hitched his wagon based on ideology or policy is illogical. On the other hand, some of Trump's impulsive ramblings (dishonor NATO agreements, refuse to pay US debt, start a trade war with China etc.) shows that, if elected, he can potentially create huge massive disruptions to world order. Thiel might be thinking he can either benefit from that or that the status-quo deserves to be destroyed.
I've seen him flip flop on foreign policy. One day we're going to stop fighting wars abroad, revert to isolationism, and just focus on improving our own economy, and then at the second debate he was talking about how he was going to destroy ISIS. In a separate instance, when accused of disagreeing with his running mate, he admitted that he hadn't discussed much foreign policy with him. I enjoyed that honesty if nothing else.
Profiting off the chaos seems much more likely than relying on Trump to keep his word or re-pay favors. I'm not sure which is more reprehensible, actually supporting Trump's general platform, or 'merely' hoping his election destabilizes the country enough for Thiel to advance his personal goals.
Yes, his campaign staff has a policy list. But does the man consistently stand by them and defend them each time? Nope[1]. Take the recent contradiction with Pence on Syria, for example. The traditional republicans are hoping he will implement their party's platform. But with a man so erratic and impulsive, and with mostly unchecked power of executive, how can anyone be sure?
From personal experience, the moment someone does any work on a project they have a claim. The state of CA is extremely worker friendly in this regard. I've made this stupid mistake twice in two different startups unrelated to Immunity Project. The first time, we had someone interview for a job and attend a few meetings. We ended up not offering them the job and they filed a complaint. We fought it and ended up spending nearly six figures on legal + more then you can possibly imagine to settle. It know this sounds insane, but its true.
The second circumstance was a co-founder who stole cash from the company and was booted. Similar end result. In both cases we had no documentation (classic startup excuse), and strongly believed in the premise that if you didn't do the work, you don't deserve to be paid. We lost in both cases. One of the primary drivers in both cases was the dreaded contingency attorney. Anytime someone is able to get an attorney to take a case on contingency with minimal out of pocket cost, they have little reason to be reasonable. And because filing is the nuclear option in the first place, they don't care about fallout. Contingency attorneys are paid a % of the resulting settlement so they will drive the case as hard as needed to extract the maximum outcome. In some cases the attorney will manipulate their client in pursuit of this outcome even if its not in their clients best interest long term. It was smart for Kyle to file first because it makes it harder for the other party to retain a contingency attorney who will cover defense in the deal. This will dramatically increase the other parties cost to litigate the case.
Lessons learned:
1. ALWAYS put stuff in writing.
2. NEVER have anyone do any "work" without some written agreement on compensation.
3. The only winners in litigation are the lawyers.
4. 3pt14159 makes a great point: ALWAYS settle early. The longer you let something drag, the more it will cost. Its always best to try to settle prior to either party filing a lawsuit. In this case it sounds like Kyle tried to settle first but was unsuccessful.
ALWAYS settle early. By leaving it be you're exposing yourself. Eyes get wider and wider as you raise more and more. When that $2m wire clears, if it means writing a $300k cheque or agreeing to a $1m payout over 5 years, just do it. Don't be idealistic when there are real stakes on the line. True, they can still bring you to court later, but you'll be in a _much_ better position.
Offering to cover defense increases their overall cost. If they agree to provide defense up front prior to anyone filing, and they are able to file first, they are able to make the bet that the opposing party won't file a counter. If the opposing party has already filed, they cannot make that bet, and as a result they are less likely to cover defense in the contingency agreement.
David and Chris are extraordinary entrepreneurs. I learned a lot watching them build Zesty week over week during YC W14. This is a hard business to build. Providing consistent service in terms of restaurant relations, food quality, and delivery is non trivial. Zesty is the best at it. All of thedogeye's points about the value of serving high quality meals to your team are spot on. Congrats David, Chris and the Zesty crew!
Taylor Swift is signed to Big Machine Records (BMLG). Big Machine Records is distributed by Universal Music Group (UMG). I am sure BMLG/UMG received a sizable advance from Apple in exchange for streaming rights for their master recordings. UMG probably negotiated an even higher advance in exchange for permission to launch the 3 month free campaign. UMG / BMLG should be sharing this advance payment with their artists. Taylor knows this so a good question to ask is: What % of the advance is Taylor receiving? The answer is probably none because most artists receive nothing from these advance payments. Even the hugely successful ones. So why is Taylor writing this letter? She is extremely smart and has a brilliant team of advisors around her so she knows about the advance that Apple already paid UMG. While posting this letter fits into the general discourse regarding underpayments to artists from streaming services, behind the scenes she is likely negotiating her own, separate, significant advance from Apple. I would do the same if I were her.
I suspect her ability to refuse apple the right to stream her album is also a product of her success. I doubt smaller artists have that right in their agreements.
I live and work in Oakland. My office is 3 blocks from 19th street BART in the heart of uptown. There is so much incredible development happening in this part of the city. The Hive project launches later this year (The Hub is already open in the space) with awesome new apartments, and amazing new food options. From Lake Merritt to Jack London Sq. to Rockridge to Montclair there are a wide range of options to consider for office / living space. Its also typically ~10 degrees warmer then SF. If you have any questions feel free to ask and I'll answer when I get back this afternoon.
The base compensation is reasonable given the high cost of living in SF and the personal risk associated with the job. The pension is tougher to justify. Up to 90% of your salary at age 58 until EOL is likely unsustainable for the city. Cue epic battle between those who support public pensions and those who don't.
Not sure why this is ruffling so many feathers. There are thousands of great tech companys to work for that aren't on any Google, Apple or EBay "no-hire" list and vice versa. I fail to see how a few big companys agreeing not to poach talent from each other artificially reduces the total compensation ceiling industry wide.
