Yep. I don't need to hear the side of the story of the people who devalued the hard work of others within their org for their own personal gain.
The only side of the story I need to hear is the side of the CO-founder who was only given 15% stake in the company to begin with so that they could never protect themselves from the clearly Machiavellian CEO.
CEOs in general, tend to be charismatic. They tend to be storytellers. That's often the reason they are chosen for their role; it's often their only real skill -- the ability to develop and push narrative.
In my view, I am better off not hearing the CEO's side of the story. Because I, like many people of average or below intelligence, am unlikely to be able to see through the lies in their narrative. Regardless of what's true, I would probably be convinced by whatever they say.
I have personal experience being fooled by charismatic people. The only side of the story I need to hear is the side of the person who was duped.
> And there's no way to tell what's true.
15% stake for a co-founder who clearly didn't understand the stakes (pun intended) involved in taking such a low equity share clearly points out where the evil lies here.
All your comment talked about was money in the abstract, so you totally missed the point.
The point was that here we have a technical founder who spent years of their life working hard to build a product only to have their hard work de-valued in ownership terms by a non-technical founder who would be cleaning toilets were it not for their ability to scam naive engineers into doing The Work for them.
The moral of the story: don't work hard for someone who can de-value your hard work on a whim while laughing all the way to the bank.
I've looked through job listings on workatastartup and I've interviewed with some of those companies. I've also submitted proposals to YC and joined their cofounder search site. So I am mildly familiar with the landscape of VC funding and startups.
On the cofounder search site I had dozens of non-technical co-founders who were trying to scam me out of years of my life by offering me anywhere from 10% to 49% equity as a...get this...COFOUNDER. These people don't want to do the work to develop the skills necessary to make their oftentimes idiotic visions a reality and they almost all want controlling equity stakes, as described in this poor bastard's story.
This reminds me of the time when I had first moved to a small midwest college town with just my bike and a '93 geo metro half full of belongings. I spent the night at a friend's apartment with my nice (for me) mountain bike locked up at the bike rack. My mistake was in only locking up the frame; in the morning, both wheels (with expensive at the time disc brakes) were missing. First thing I did when the local bike shop opened was take my wheel-less frame there to see about getting new wheels.
On my way into the shop a dude approaches me and tells me that he "borrowed" my wheels and that they are in the shop. What? I'm confused. I enter the shop and sure enough, there are my wheels! But wait, the shop clerk says. How do you know these are your wheels? Because, good sir, this bike thief right next to me admitted as much just now! See him nod! Yes, he stole those wheels from this bike! No, says the shopkeeper; you must be mistaken; that good fellow right there sold me these nice-ish wheels for a really good price; how could they be yours?
Aghast, infuriated, I left. Fuming. Why didn't I call the cops? Why didn't I firebomb this chop shop and leave it a smoking ruin, a warning to all future bike thieves and their accomplices? Alas, this was nearly half my life ago. Life goes on.
For what you want done, $5k likely isn't enough, and here's why:
The kind of work you want done requires specialized knowledge of several domains (or the ability to quickly develop an understanding). The kind of people who already have that specialized knowledge or who can get up to speed that quickly typically get paid on the order of $200k/year (but probably often much more) in terms of base salary. If you consider that after taxes that can be as low as $150k/year or less banked, that translates into roughly $2884/week.
After taxes, your $5k offering is going to be roughly as low as $3k - $3.5k banked.
So what you're really saying is "here's potentially several months worth of work that we want you to do for not much more than what you would make elsewhere in 1 week and you're not going to see a dime until we see results".
Considering this could take up to two or three months of dedicated time and effort, here are more reasonable terms:
* $3k/week retainer (before taxes so this is less than what a skilled dev would get working full time but necessary for you to attract talent and take on part of the risk yourself)
* weekly progress check-ins
* $5k for C programs compiled with Zig targeting wasix-libc
running in Wasmer
* $7.5k for Zig programs compiled and running in Wasmer
* $2.5k for all Zig changes merged upstream
* $1k/bug retainer for future maintenance on this new Zig feature
WASIX relies on way too many forked projects to be maintainable. It's part of the reason that I resigned after only a couple months working for you - what you're trying to do isn't a terrible idea, but it is super poorly executed.
The other part is exactly what yoshuaw described as very disrespectful and immature behavior on your part. I know from my interactions with you that you are extremely argumentative _to a fault_, don't take no for an answer, and always assume you know better than everyone around you. Maybe you're somehow proud of that, but it's not surprising to hear you've been banned from participating in the Zig community.
You should respect the Zig community's wishes and be willing to contract the work out with clear terms, taking on some of the risk that it takes longer than expected yourself.
In your view, what would it take to get the not-in-good-standing issue resolved?
What do you get out of shitposting Wasmer when they announce an initiative they are excited about? (I'm mostly trying to understand your psychology, not whether or if you have some kind of competing financial interest)
Yep. I don't need to hear the side of the story of the people who devalued the hard work of others within their org for their own personal gain.
The only side of the story I need to hear is the side of the CO-founder who was only given 15% stake in the company to begin with so that they could never protect themselves from the clearly Machiavellian CEO.
CEOs in general, tend to be charismatic. They tend to be storytellers. That's often the reason they are chosen for their role; it's often their only real skill -- the ability to develop and push narrative.
In my view, I am better off not hearing the CEO's side of the story. Because I, like many people of average or below intelligence, am unlikely to be able to see through the lies in their narrative. Regardless of what's true, I would probably be convinced by whatever they say.
I have personal experience being fooled by charismatic people. The only side of the story I need to hear is the side of the person who was duped.
> And there's no way to tell what's true.
15% stake for a co-founder who clearly didn't understand the stakes (pun intended) involved in taking such a low equity share clearly points out where the evil lies here.