Yes, talent acquisitions tend to be 1-2m per founder. The founders make more after tax though because they pay long term capital gains tax rather than income tax.
A talent acquisition is not usually the founders' first choice. What they get in return for the risk of the startup failing is the chance of a really big success. A talent acquisition is usually a backup plan. As a backup plan it's a pretty good deal.
(A talent acquisition is sometimes the founders' first choice if it happens early enough. Then it's a better deal because the money is divided by less time.)
>(A talent acquisition is sometimes the founders' first choice if it happens early enough. Then it's a better deal because the money is divided by less time.)
I thought acquisitions were one of the last surviving relics of indentured servitude, besides universities. My guess is that it's still a better deal when you adjust for risk, likelihood of large success, and fully look at the expected value matrix. Though I'm skeptical that you can really discuss probability in the context of multiple people's talents, without historical data (the best proxy I see is that you were _chosen_ by pg or other tier 1 VC, and said VC has this historical record, etc.)
Comments
Yes, talent acquisitions tend to be 1-2m per founder. The founders make more after tax though because they pay long term capital gains tax rather than income tax.
A talent acquisition is not usually the founders' first choice. What they get in return for the risk of the startup failing is the chance of a really big success. A talent acquisition is usually a backup plan. As a backup plan it's a pretty good deal.
(A talent acquisition is sometimes the founders' first choice if it happens early enough. Then it's a better deal because the money is divided by less time.)
>(A talent acquisition is sometimes the founders' first choice if it happens early enough. Then it's a better deal because the money is divided by less time.)
I thought acquisitions were one of the last surviving relics of indentured servitude, besides universities. My guess is that it's still a better deal when you adjust for risk, likelihood of large success, and fully look at the expected value matrix. Though I'm skeptical that you can really discuss probability in the context of multiple people's talents, without historical data (the best proxy I see is that you were _chosen_ by pg or other tier 1 VC, and said VC has this historical record, etc.)