This post is short-sighted and simplistic. Worst in what sense? The decrease in equity is countered by the increased stability because the company has money in the bank.<p>There are people whose risk profiles make it unacceptable for them to join a company before it reaches a certain degree of stability. For those people, the second the company has closed a VC round might be the best time to join. I've hired people in that exact situation; they only made the leap to a startup when I was able to guarantee that we'd have enough money to pay them for a while.
The error he's making is that personal risk is different from the company's risk. Just after receiving funding the company isn't any less likely to fail (well, maybe slightly less), but a job with this company now offers a steady income for longer than was guaranteed prior to greater funding.<p>So, in fact, just after funding might be a great time to join a company.
I think there's a fairly important consideration that he misses, especially if you lack experience. Right after the Series A is when you're most likely to gain useful experience and work on interesting stuff. Before the funding, you're often just in survival mode, and just building the simplest things possible. Later on, job roles become more rigid, and most of the design/architecture has solidified.<p>Correspondingly, this might be the most fun/interesting time to be at a startup.
Another thing that's missed, that doesn't seem mentioned in the comments thusfar, is that we're not looking at the odds that this company succeeds; we're looking at the odds the investment I made pays off. The odds that a company that already deserved investment succeeds should only be increased a bit by getting funding now (as opposed to later or as opposed to getting by without it). However, the fact that they raised the money means that someone else thought they were at least so likely to succeed (and bet on it) and that should increase <i>my estimate</i> that this company will succeed more than the cash infusion will increase their actual chances.
>I’ve met a lot of entrepreneurs, but even the smartest are usually barely on par, intellectually/analytically/etc, with average/mediocre hedge fund analysts (just from my own personal experience). There is a reason for this; make startups more compelling for smart people to join; value human capital at its intrinsic worth, and pay accordingly; after all, that’s what the VC money is for half the time, right?<p>-from his comments
note this post is from 2009 [edit -- now reflected in the title]--<p>I think the top comment makes a pretty solid argument<p><i>You're an entrepreneur, which means that your risk profile is high. Mine too! That's why we're leading companies, not joining them.<p>I look at our current economy and see instability everywhere, which has made me even MORE risk tolerant. Being in an entrepreneurial company that's trying to do something new and/or differently seems safer than almost anything else, but few people seem to share that perspective.<p>Most people just aren't cut out for the inherent instability of an early-stage start-up, and the lousy economy has many people clinging that much more tightly to what they know. </i>
I'd say it's a best time because then the poor blokes finally have some money to pay you properly. Also it's not their own money so they may feel generous.<p>Unless you are working for startups only for the hope of hitting a jackpot. Then the OP is probably right.