I applied to Loom several years ago while they were still tiny. The CEO sent me a Loom thanking me for applying and asking me to send him back a Loom describing why I was excited to work for his company. Something about that rubbed me the wrong way at the time. I didn't reply and dipped out of the interview process.
Maybe in a big company, but actually I completely disagree with this in the context of a small startup. In that context, having a tight team of people who are highly passionate about the product is _essential_.
The only real complex problem a start-up has to solve is making the product successful. Engineers that love "complex problems" with no love for the product / space it's in is usually a recipe for disaster.
Using the product your company makes in the way it is intended to be used isn't "drinking the koolaid". If you aren't comfortable doing that then you really shouldn't be working there.
I mean... you don't HAVE to, you're right. However, hiring for most engineering roles is a filtering problem rather than a sourcing problem. I'd rather hire a Javascript engineer who'll at least _pretend_ to be excited about the job than hire a Javascript engineer who is lukewarm to cold right out of the gate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I like that. Much faster than writing a cover letter or application email and shows you understand what they make. I take it you weren’t that interested in their product.
I thought (and still think) their product is a great idea.
Some people here seem to think my objection was being asked to use the product. It was actually the content of the message I was asked to send that bothered me. It wasn't "explain how your experience would be useful in this role", or "explain your feelings on the technical aspects of this product". It was something closer to "show me how excited you are to work here".
I don't know why but at the time it felt like being asked to grovel. My stupid pride, I guess.
Well were you excited to work there? For a startup that usually matters as much or more than technical skills and experience. If the founders are giving you a significant chunk of equity in their company then they want to make sure you are in it for the right reasons, and won't bounce as soon as you reach your vesting cliff.
If you think answering this simple question is a hit on your pride then yeah, you were probably not a good fit.
It is hard to remember how I felt about the company before (as opposed to the product idea). To be even more clear, the request was explicit. Like "we are super passionate about this product here and want people who are just as passionate, send us a video showing how excited you are".
I'm sure some others can't understand and I view it as a mistake. 2 minutes of performative "I can' wait to be a full stack engineer!" or "we're really going to change he world!" energy might have netted me some big payout? If I passed the interview? Who knows.
It's one thing to have genuine passion for working hard, doing a great job, making a great product. There is something else in being asked to make a video performance of that.
It's something like how I hate leet code. It is almost just a hoop you jump through to prove you are willing to jump through hoops. But I suppose it does provide many companies with a lot of value. And some of those companies end up exiting high. Maybe if I was less prideful I could have taken more advantage.
FWIW I don’t think of it as pride as much as setting boundaries. You understood yours and it made you uncomfortable to cross it. I personally think that’s a good thing.
I don't feel like it's necessary to take sides on this one - seems like Loom gave you some signal on what company culture looked like on the inside, and you decided it wasn't a good match. Seems like a positive interaction/outcome for both parties?
In my experience as a founder, excitement to work in a particular area is way more important than experience/skills. Ideally you have both. But lack of enthusiasm for a product, especially a niche product, kills a culture.
Yes startups are all about building great products that users will love. But that love should be organic and authentic, not blind belief.
I suspect that this expectation is likely because most startups are actually bullshit products. Look at all the dumbass crypto startups and now the AI startups. Its become an institution that churns out crap so you need to be able to delude yourself into believing the nonsense to keep doing it repeatedly.
I’m sure they didn’t mean to give you that impression. That’s a good lesson for people making these requests. If the CEO had worded it more evenly (“send me a Loom about what interests you in working for Loom”) you might’ve sent one in, and the people who wanted to demonstrate sheer enthusiasm to maximally fulfill the request still would’ve.
(Also, I still think you didn’t much like the product… :) )
At a startup, you need people who are excited to make the product a success, not just someone who's gonna churn through tickets and tick off boxes. They were probably looking to see if you were going to commit at that level. Totally get why this rubs some people the wrong way, but probably just means it's not a good fit.
Nope. Loom was last valued at $1.5 billion in 2021, so with this acquisition a lot of people's options undoubtedly got totally wiped out due to liquidation preferences.
This comment misunderstands how liq pref works. Liq pref is about the amount of money invested ($175M), not about the valuation. At a $975M exit and a par-for-the-course liq pref of 1.0, it is very likely that all shareholders will have made money on the exit.
Shareholders who got in before that last round, that is. Employees who joined in the last few years will likely have underwater options unless Loom internally repriced already-granted options.
Why are they underwater? The "value" of their options would have been the preferred share - common share price. So it would have been a fat haircut but likely still netted them some number > common share price, no?
At exit the preferred shares become common, and the common shares increase in value accordingly. I've seen even series E companies that kept their common share price to under 20% of the preferred share price. If you started on day X with a common share price of 20% of the last preferred share price, and the company was acquired on day X + 1 at a discount, say 60% of the last preferred share price after factoring in liquidation preferences, then your profit from the options is still 2x the strike price.
Loom is an odd case because the timing of their last round was simply perfect. It was announced in May 2021, which means the terms would've been set in Jan or Feb, when Tiger and other firms were on a rampage and competition to get into rounds was at its height. That last $130m has to have been on very favorable terms, not just the valuation but e.g. no crazy liquidation preference. So, unless Loom's founders made some inexplicably bad deals, I'd expect even recent hires to still make a little money. Nobody should be getting zeroed out.
As I mentioned in another comment -- no, their options will not be underwater, because the strike on their options is set by the 409A value, which will have been far less than 1.5B. It wouldn't be unusual to see a company that's got its preferred stock valued at 1.5B and its 409A at 400M.
Are you counting employees that joined after the 1.5B valuation?
I am sure they made money but not what was expected (exiting above 1.5B).
How are you determining par for the course liq preference of 1.0? Where does that data come from? I ask genuinely as the small sample of companies I know of personally have liq preferences greater than 1.
Liq pref > 1 was extremely uncommon in the last 5 years.
Employees who joined after the 1.5B valuation will have made money because the strike on their options is set by the 409A, which will have been far, far less than 1.5B. Preferred stock price is not the same as 409A common price.
if they had options, i.e the ability to purchase stock at, say, $10, but the company was sold with that stock being worth $9 only, then exercising those options would lose them money.
