1. 10

Unfortunately, we also don’t have an exploitative bullshit tag.

This article pisses me off so much, but the math and the logic behind it is interesting for anybody who’s been in that position to read. For example, the wink-and-nod “Hey, former employees are literally leeches trying to enact commie wealth transfer by wanting a fair shake” thinking is good to recognize in future dealings with MBAs. :|

EDIT: Archived version aquí, https://c0redump.org/d/2016-06-23-lack-of-options.pdf .


  2. 3

    The post (and only this post on their blog) is 404ing, though it still appears in their search engine. The cache link goes to a cache of the 404 page, and neither Google cache nor archive.org have it, either.

    1. 4

      If you are not able to access this article, I’ve cached it:


      1. 2

        It’s also still linked to from their main page and the author’s page.

      2. 3

        Aren’t stock options designed that way on purpose to help keep valuable early employees with the company long enough for it to IPO or get acquired? At that time the options can be exercised and some of the stock sold off to cover costs.

        1. 2

          Yes, this article is excrement. I’m moderately surprised a16z had the self-awareness to pull it down. Aside from their conflict of interest, the argument rests on the ridiculous assumption that vested options have not actually been “earned” until you can afford to convert them to real shares, and therefore holding the options – which were doled out at timed intervals based on continued employment and work – is parasitic.