Whether you get answers depends a lot on the size of the company.
Fewer than 10 employees... those interviewing likely know the answers and will share.
Between 10-50 employees... those interviewing may still know the answers and may still be open to sharing them.
Above 50 employees... it is increasingly likely that this information isn't known by more than a few people (those involved in the fundraising, accounts, senior leadership), and that your interviewers do not know it - if they know it at one point in time it's out of date quickly (next raise). It quick becomes something that only a very few people know and the information isn't useful/constructive to those focusing on execution (those who will be interviewing you).
The questions are good... but if you don't get answers and would choose not to take the roles on that basis, then you might want to chat to a lot of people who have been early stage and done well - because very few got answers to those questions.
A lot of this information is also available in the company’s Articles of Incorporation. Can’t hurt to ask in the interview, but it’s probably a good idea to pull the actual filing anywhere you’re seriously considering an offer (if it’s a Delaware corporation, you have to pay a registered agent to get these documents, it’s usually $50-$100.)
Typically includes things like total outstanding shares, conversion price of the various preferred rounds, liquidation preference for the preferred shares, etc. The delta between the most recent preferred round and the 409a is the best approximation of the actual value of the equity at the time of the grant.
It's important to note that, unless I'm terribly mistaken, the articles of incorporation are subject to change. By a board vote, I presume. So your compensation is controlled, at the end of the day, by the investors. And any acquisition (change of ownership) likely renders the equity clauses null and void (at the discretion of the buyer).
For any size company it’s a waste of time asking equity questions to most interviewers, just like it’s a waste of time asking questions about benefits.
Assuming your interviewers are potential future teammates, ask them questions about work. Ask your recruiter or future manager benefits and comp questions. At most companies >10 people, your recruiter will have a packet with all the answers to equity questions.
I agree, but I'm generally disappointed with the information the recruiter is able or willing to provide.
Something I've noticed more recently is the standard equity info they send everyone is both light on details and heavy on "here's how much you stand to make if we exit at X". I can't blame them for selling it, but I shouldn't have to ask for shares outstanding, latest 409a or other simple numbers.
I've also been screwed by joining just after a big raise and having my strike price end up much higher than I was told when interviewing.
I don’t try to sell candidates on the possible stock upside because I don’t want to provide investment or tax advice. I’m not licensed to do so; I have a company to run. It’s up to them to decide if they want to early exercise or if they think it’s fair not.
I do the opposite: tell the candidate the number (that’s what the board approves) and what FD percentage it represents. If they ask if it’s a reasonable amount I explain how much we give for a given position plus how that is modulated by company stage. I always allow early exercise.
In 30 years of startups nobody has ever complained.
Start-ups who don’t solve these issues will see more knowledgeable potential employees walk away. The fact is start-ups pay a fair bit below the market wage and people have every right to know what sort of equity you’re getting in exchange for that. If a start-up is unwilling or unable to answer fairly basic questions about how their equity works it’s totally reasonable to not work for them.
Knowledgeable about their job != knowledge about corporate equity.
There's a large share of capable engineers who are still wide-eyed over startup equity. Folks I know personally and greatly respect. Startups have had no trouble duping engineers into lower compensation while delivering serviceable results, and will continue to have no problem.
This might be a harsh, unpopular opinion, but if someone is going to accept a job where equity is a significant portion of their compensation, they really need to understand the essentials of equity, how options work, their tax implications, how to read basic financial statements, and so on. This is your livelihood we're talking about. Would you accept a job that paid in Bitcoin without understanding the basics of cryptocurrency? How about one that paid in Beanie Babies? I'm not saying go back to school and get a Finance degree, but people need to get informed about their compensation!
> Would you accept a job that paid in Bitcoin without understanding the basics of cryptocurrency?
the funny thing is that the vast majority of people don't understand how money comes into being, how banks work, etc. And yet, they still just accept cash and use it.
So may be it isn't irrational to have accepted bitcoins in a job as payment, without understanding it. The reason most people don't accept bitcoin (or crypto in general) is that they feel the value is too volatile and might change too much for them to make good financial plans with it.
Learn the vocabulary. Look up things like 409a valuations, 83b elections, NSO and ISO stock options, the difference between long-term and short-term capital gains, strike price vs exercise price (plus how and when taxes on options are triggered and calculated), marginal tax rate vs effective tax rate. Probably also worthwhile to learn the basics of corporate finance, like annual recurring revenue (ARR), costs of goods sold (COGS), customer acquisition costs (CAC), differences between cashflow and profit, EBITDA (plus what each of those words mean), capital expenditure (capex) vs operational expenditure (opex). If you understand the vocabulary, it's a lot easier to evaluate whether a given source is authoritative or not.
Sign up for Matt Levine's newsletter. He's perhaps starting to be a little overexposed on HN, but he's informative and humorous, and his newsletter is a good way to get a little exposure to finance every day.
It's not not startup-equity specific, but check out Bogleheads for generic investing advice.
Companies will flat-out decline to answer most of these questions, citing the information as confidential. There's a reason most employees, not to mention competitors, potential investors, etc, don't know the intimate details of a private company's financing. So you're welcome to ask but naive to expect detailed answers.
On the other hand, I always insist on talking to the CEO or the highest ranking exec you can during the interview process. It is absolutely in your best interest to hear the company's vision and path to success directly from the source. Again, this person will clam up when discussing financial specifics, but you should still expect them to make you feel secure about the company's potential.
Yeah this is why I work freelance (often for startups).
The present value of cash flows is so much higher than the future value of some illiquid, highly speculative startup equity with way more restrictions than regular public stock equity.
I contacted for 10 years and managed to save up about 200k. Started at pre IPO company and walked away with 2.5m after taxes in 7 years. Big difference.
And I’m sure that some people who played the lottery actually won. That doesn’t mean that statistically counting on a payout from equity earned from a startup is worth it.
I worked at a startup for 9 month.. I left decided not to exercise any options and they got purchased very shortly after for a higher amount than anyone expected. I got a slightly higher paying position that allowed me to scrape together enough to qualify to buy a house in a large city. If I would have waited another cycle I would have been priced out.
10 years later I'm up 2 million on the house, lost 20,000-40,000 grand on the startup options. I wasn't forced to move in order to full vest and be tied to a dead product for 2 years while they figured out how to move anything of value into their applications.
There are a lot of ways to earn a million and taking more cash and investing yourself could yield more.
Impressive gain on the house! If you didn't exercise the options, do you mean you lost out on the opportunity for 30k?
Are you tapping into the value of your home with a mortgage? Otherwise, it seems like that's even less liquid than private stock (unless you move out.)
If you were asking these questions to a 10-50 person company, would it matter if they answered everything truthfully? All equity comp is lottery ticket in private companies.
I know people in listed companies, large, old ones, who were bitten quite badly by the stock going down. Treating everything besides your base cash pay as a bonus that can go to zero is the prudent thing to do.
How many publicly traded old companies had illiquid stocks that you couldn’t sell for something when they vested - especially tech stocks? Yes I know about Enron. But that was both an outlier and over a decade ago.
Yes, mine are down about 20% from the time I was awarded them. But at least I can sell them and not hope for an exit event.
I don’t thing employees of FAAMG (not a typo, Netflix was never “Big”Tech with a 1 trillion dollar* market cap) have to worry about their stock going to $0
Alternatively, don't join startups for the equity.
Even if you genuinely believe the person answering your questions genuinely believes the answers they are giving, there's perilously little evidence to suggest their answers will be binding or accurate.
4 years from now, anticipate something to the effect of:
"I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further", this could come from the CEO, an investor or the acquirer. Anything more favorable should be considered a statistical miracle.
Joining a near-IPO company is something I can't speak to, but have a more optimistic view of. Furthermore, joining a public company with liquid equity is something I can personally say is well worth it.
The IPO market is fickle. Someone who joined a “near-IPO company” last year may have been reasonably expecting a liquidity event within 12 months, but now finds the IPO indefinitely postponed and the company trying to raise additional funding in a downround that may halve the value of those illiquid shares.
Personally I’d take my chances either early, with a meaningful share of the company, or post-IPO when the amount of shares is much smaller but its value reasonably predictable.
If you join an established public company that offers RSUs, etc. thats different. Those can be traded for cash money, once vested. Getting your equity out of a startup before the IPO or public stage isn't as straightforward, or real.
Join startups because it's a thing you are so passionate about making, a thing that you think the world needs so badly that you are willing to make personal and professional sacrifices to bring it to reality. Join a startup because you love thr team, really want to work with them and really think that what your building is good for you, your community, the world.
The equity piece is just there so folks like us don't feel "Walter Whited" when our passion project makes a big impact, and the world rewards that impact with financial gains.
From quick googling the odds of winning powerball is on the order of e-10, while unicorn startups of valuations above 1 billion have a success rate on the order of e-5.
Your comment is true, startup equity is more likely than a lotto ticket so it's not the best analogy.
Yeah, if my equity is worth something I'll be thrilled, but for me the appeal of startups is autonomy and minimized corporate bullshit. I know that I'm taking a pay cut in exchange for those perks, and the deal is so worth it to me. Sanity > money.
Great coworkers, fun work environment with high velocity of innovation, decent enough pay, flexible work arrangements, preferred geography, belief in the mission.
You can get all of those things at a non-startup. Having worked at a handful of startups and non-startups, I am skeptical that a startup offers those things at above-average rate the justifies the downsides, which are, from my experience:
* High pressure to work at all hours, because a startup is fragile
* Extreme financial uncertainty
* Many QoL concessions
If you're not accepting a generous equity package in exchange for ensuring that the startup thrives and succeeds, you're missing a huge opportunity for exchanging hard labor for potentially high return. It's like buying a lottery ticket without filling in the numbers.
> You can get all of those things at a non-startup.
I mean I've been trying super hard for the past 10 years and I haven't been able to find a workgroup at a large corporation that has a high velocity of execution and is actually innovating much. I'm personally taking a pay cut to go to a startup to hopefully find this.
I'd love to join Project Starline or similar truly innovative groups within large companies, but I don't have a degree from a top-10 school so startups are kind of my only way that I can find to get to an environment like that. Even with strong references from Staff Engineers at Google my resume just gets thrown out, haven't been able to secure even a first round interview with FAANG in over 5 years of trying. Maybe they're not interested in working with ex-oil industry engineers, or maybe my resume just really really sucks.
> you're missing a huge opportunity for exchanging hard labor for potentially high return. It's like buying a lottery ticket without filling in the numbers.
Sure, but my reasons didn't have "make more money" they had "decent-enough pay".
Also currently my preferred geography is Houston to stay with my incredible partner. Most of the large companies here have a lot people that I don't enjoy working with -- e.g. people who are outspokenly excited for an illegal immigrant to try to steal tools out of their shed at night so that they can legally kill them. So "great coworkers" is also a bit hard with "preferred geography" sometimes. Granted for a $250,000 role, we'd certainly pack up and move somewhere, but I haven't been able to get FAANG to even give me a first round interview!
The bottom line is that it's entirely possible that the best situation for me is to make almost the same money to work with what seems to be an incredible group of really, really, really smart people on some super cool technology. Yes it will be "more work", but with this should come more skill development. I don't have and am not planning on having kids, so I'm happy enough just going to pilates at 7am and working my ass off all day on something that I find personal reward in, and then doing my hobbies (sailing, beer brewing) on the weekends.
I mean, obviously. But also it's just their fantasy. The chance of it actually happening is absurdly low. The chance of me having to listen to daily rants about everything and just ignore them or go "uh huh." is 100%.
Yeah I meant in jest (they made
something legal illegal by saying it is legal). They most likely would do nothing. The actual crime is spreading hate and making it uncomfortable to work.
Buy lottery tickets instead (“startup equity equivalent”) and work for established companies who can offer the same. Startup employees optimize for workism (“mission”, trying to obtain meaning from their work), let them, optimize for quality of life and comp instead (many larger orgs have embraced remote and even support global nomads if you structure employment arrangement and finances appropriately).
I recently did a round of interviews specifically targeting series A and series B companies and this is a pretty accurate summary. Some interesting things that were offered to me:
- Unlimited nomading or work anywhere in the world for the same pay
I noted this in my comment above, pasted here again:
Equity is a lotto ticket, not an IOU.
Join startups because it's a thing you are so passionate about making, a thing that you think the world needs so badly that you are willing to make personal and professional sacrifices to bring it to reality. Join a startup because you love thr team, really want to work with them and really think that what your building is good for you, your community, the world.
The equity piece is just there so folks like us don't feel "Walter Whited" when our passion project makes a big impact, and the world rewards that impact with financial gains.
I agree with the lottery ticket analogy, and I also use it in another comment below. However, I think the other points that you (and others) mention can be satisfied at more stable companies. And in fact, those same points are also sometimes used by manipulative people to squeeze undervalued work out of undervalued starry-eyed early employees. Not saying you're doing that, just that they are co-opted by manipulative people.
In my opinion and experience, if the equity piece goes away, it is not worth it to work at a startup. It's also very likely that you'll pick up a lot of dysfunctional behaviors, depending on how (im)mature a startups employees are. You're better off getting experience at a more stable company.
100% if a person can satisfy those things in a more stable company that is absolutely what they should do. No doubt, and I'd say it over 100 times.
For those that can't find those things at a large established company, I would recommend tp others, and have chosen startupsyself at times in my career.
Man, I don't know... I joined a startup last year thinking that, but then found they were way more into process, Jira, estimation, etc. Plus a bunch of tech debt from the CTO's MVP and "don't touch it".
Probably goes something like this: Big company uses process, JIRA, etc. People leave this and do a startup, and like tech stack they are not going to change it because it is a startup. So the process comes along with them. In some ways this makes sense because they know what they know and they think it has worked for them.
Software human process systems are self-reinforcing. Be it Scrum (de-facto Scrum, as it is commonly practiced), or whatever, they system is define in such a way that the system can never be questioned, so the system appears to be successful always.
If the project is late or full of tech debt, it is the people to blame, not the project management framework. In this sense these systems are almost invincible to scrutiny, only to be defeated if a new management team has a preferred system.
Words I have never heard in a retro: "should we even be doing 'agile' at all?"
The less meetings you have the better run a company is, obviously depending on the type of meetings. Not enough meetings is another indicator of bad organisation. The start-up experience I have is an equal amount of pointless meetings compared with established companies. Only with a significant majority of participants treating it as a meeting with a purpose, something people at established companies know better.
To learn by observing the founding members, understanding the business model, the market, and eventually becoming a founding member of the next company.
Not something you can do on a full-time job of resolving Git conflicts at FAANG.
That works if the founders know what they are doing, otherwise well, not so much.
In my domain, Supply Chain Management, half of the tools Amazon is using daily can serve as carbon copies for start-up ideas. With the added benefit that you know they work at scale.
1) Startups may not give you the full picture, but it's very unlikely they are going to straight up 'lie' to you - that would be bad, and likely illegal.
2) Yes, almost anything can happen with equity, and when it gets shifty, bad things will happen so you have to have a reasonable take on it - which, admittedly is really hard for most people.
I think it's better to understand that there's going to be a lot of risk in equity, and it's not something you should bank on too hard.
I appreciate your response, and I know many share your perspective.
I want to clarify that I am not claiming all startups founders will _lie_ to you. What I am saying is that while their statements may be true now, it is highly unlikely what they tell you will remain true, and whether or not it does will likely be out of their control. Parallels can be seen in Oculus' infamous "guarantee" that they would not require Facebook integration. The deal will be altered, sooner or later.
It _is_ really hard for most people, because equity is confusing and exciting and sexy. I'll continue to expound a cynical approach because the other side is full of powerful, wealthy stakeholders who have a lot to gain from wide-eyed engineers being misinformed.
Is the motivation that asking these questions is going to be used in some way to get better compensation?
1. Ask questions
2. ???
3. Profit!
The true is that equity in a startup us extremely risky. So you're either going to get a large chunk and be a decision maker or you're ganna be a passive participant and hope for the best. No questions is going to change that. Even if the answers to these questions may be desirable NOW, tomorrow you can be diluted. It's meaningless to stress over this. Join because you love the company or are going to be a decision maker.
First off, if you're comparing multiple offers with similar salaries, equity considerations may be a good way to make a decision.
Beyond that, understanding how companies handle equity compensation can tell you a lot about their culture and treatment of employees. There are companies out there that are eager to answer these questions because they give generous stock compensation and want you to know it. There are also companies that will obfuscate and hide behind misleading numbers. I once had an offer and asked for more equity, only to be told by the recruiter that the stock was about to split, so I'd actually get twice as much (this is absolute nonsense, to be clear, and a huge red flag).
Lastly, with regard to your initial question about compensation, asking these questions absolutely can be useful to that end. When you're negotiating with early to mid-stage startups, one of the things that you can negotiate is your equity/salary split. I once took a pay cut from the initial offer in exchange a much greater amount of equity than I was initially offered. That was because I found a lot of positives about the company and preferred higher risk and more reward (thankfully it looks like that is going to work out very well in my favor, but obviously that was in no way assured). If a company's giving you bad answers as it relates to equity, you may well want to try to negotiate for a higher salary in exchange for less equity, so your financial circumstances aren't tied as much to the company's performance. Understanding equity gives you one more dimension on which to negotiate, and the more things you can negotiate, the better off you are.
There is this prevailing idea in Silicon Valley that you should just ignore equity and treat it like a lottery ticket, and while I think that is very good for financial planning, it is otherwise awful advice. Just because you don't have full control over the way things go with equity doesn't mean that you shouldn't educate yourself on what can be a meaningful portion of your compensation.
> only to be told by the recruiter that the stock was about to split, so I'd actually get twice as much (this is absolute nonsense, to be clear, and a huge red flag).
It’s nonsense, but coming from a recruiter, it’s not a red flag to me. If I red flagged every recruiter who didn’t quite know how the world worked, I don’t how many I’d have left. If a founder or a CFO tells you that, it’s a red flag; if it’s a recruiter, they’re still wrong, but I don’t count it nearly as sharply against the company.
It's a big red flag to me, because understanding compensation is an important part of a recruiter's job. The recruiter either did not understand it, which is bad, because you've got someone doing important work (negotiating with potential hires) who doesn't understand a basic part of their job, or they did understand it and were purposely trying to mislead it. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on the company.
For every person who is talking about how well they analyzed the success of their startup, there are nine who thought they were smart that you never hear about because their equity end up being worthless.
You're way off with that number. Nine out of ten startups may fail, but far greater than 10% of employees receiving equity ultimately see some value from it.
Startups that fail tend to do so early, before they've hired a lot of people. Far more equity grants are given out by series C-D-E startups because they're able to hire vastly more people, and the rate of failure of those companies is much lower.
And again, that's still not a reason just to ignore the equity component of an offer. You're clearly cynical about equity - that's fine. Understand your equity and use that information to negotiate for less of it and more salary (or whatever else you prefer).
They are only talking about investors who have first preference in any “success” of the company and they are usually well diversified and not depending on one successful exit. You as an employee get lower preferences and have all of your eggs in one basket.
Now given a choice, why would I work for a startup instead of a profitable FAAMG (not a typo) where I get RSUs or even a “second tier” profitable tech company like Salesforce, Adobe, Intel, Nvidia, etc. where at every vesting event I have the opportunity to immediately sell and diversify my risks? I don’t need to depend on the long term viability of my RSUs. Just the viability over the next six months?
Diligence on the startup so you know what you're getting into. Also prevents early employee churn because people feel duped once they look under the hood.
The greatest frustration is usually around: 1. feeling like your equity cut is not enough once you know what other people are paid; 2. not knowing how much you pay in exercise cost / taxes / exercise window until it's too late
Is the motivation that asking these questions is going to be used in some way to get better compensation?
Could be. But these questions can also be useful as (1) bullshit filters and (2) signalling (that you know your stuff and are not to be toyed with).
In particular as to (1): you should be able to readily get answers to these questions; any hint at evasiveness, or a refusal to answer, should be taken as a red flag.
Companies should be required to open the books to employees if they are offering equity. Without good data, employees are forced to believe the founders BS.
Not only open the books, but be forthcoming about answering those questions in a way that is very easy for employees to reference without needing to look through detailed cap table info.
Maybe a mandated standard-format one-pager periodic/occasional statement with all the pertinent information in a form understandable to the layperson, so that employees don't have to ask, nor try to interpret on their own.
Most people don’t know how to interpret financial information, nor do they know how to value equity (with or without the financial context). You can look at equity crowdfunding to see how completely underprepared most people are for assessing company financials: pretty much every normal person defers to business leaders narratives to assess a business, and if you trust a business enough to join it, then you probably trust the leaders enough to buy their narrative — with or without financials.
The investors have “good data”. But even they know that only 10% of startups succeed. But HN and Reddit are full of wanna be analysts who think they can predict which startups will succeed if they have enough information.
Trying to value equity as employee or will it ever be worth anything might as well be buying books from the supermarket with winning lottery numbers.
Yes to value the options you need to do the same DD as if you are buying the company. In addition DD on the clauses about those options and the many ways you can lose out.
Most important thing everyone needs to understand about equity comp right now: most 2021 rounds overvalued all startup by significant multiples. While equities have corrected dramatically, the revaluation for startups will only occur when the next round of funding comes around.
So, in all likelihood, that unicorn $3B valuation being paraded is sub $1B right now, and if rates continue to March higher, your equity value will be cut even more dramatically.
If your heart is set on a startup that you believe will survive the next decade, take money over equity now then when the company is hurting and needs to save cash, bulk up on equity at cheap levels.
Even if you get these answers as an interview candidate, once you've joined the answers will become outdated … and for most of it, you won't be getting updated information.
While things like successful rounds of funding do get shared, enough information about the health of the company (e.g., revenue vs. expense? over time? runway? how expected projects you're working on either will or do translate to revenue, and how much?) to make a meaningful decision about whether the company is worth investing in or not just isn't ever shared, IME. With no real information, there is only one value that can be assigned to the equity: $0.
I've asked some of these questions before, but always got the answers in person or over video chat. What happens when what I was told doesn't square with what actually happens (for example: acceleration if the company is acquired)? Is there a recommendation for getting the answers to these questions in writing? Is there even any recourse?
The standard way to convert verbal answers to writing is to send out notes after. You write an email like: "It was great getting a chance to talk to you this afternoon! I wanted to send a quick summary of what I took away from the conversation, just to make sure we're on the same page..."
Yup - this is a very useful tool. It doesn't have the same status as a binding, legal contract. But it does make it a lot harder for them to wiggle away from what they were initially promising you.
I’d not really thought about it before reading the first post I linked but it’s clearly incorrect to take valuation = price payed for preferred shares * shares outstanding because you’re pricing the preferredness at 0 when it is not worth 0.
I recently got an equity offer that is a personal promise from the founder to do X in the future if Y happens. Sounds good to me. Because frankly, equity compensation is a total lottery anyway, so why not have it also depend on the trustworthiness of the founder too.
In situations like this, I would use the ambiguity in the equity component to negotiate up the base salary, or some other benefit. Otherwise you're taking on increased risk relative to other opportunities at no cost to the company.
Why compound the odds against you? Is that a serious thought process?
Just get your contingent offer in writing, because that freezes a time period of trustworthiness that remains applicable even if they change their mind or their opinion about you.
You're right, but a payout from equity compensation is contingent, already, on those things and a thousand others not happening. It's a lottery and not worth my time trying to guess the odds. Better to use that time enjoying a fair salary to work with interesting people, and then we'll see. Maybe the promise is kept, maybe not.
I think analysing equity compensation carefully is a good idea. But one outcome of that analysis can be, "Yolo, let's just give this a shot, take things a day at a time and enjoy the ride."
Not everything in life can or should be put into contracts. (Despite my recent ode to them.)
A very important question is missing imho — is there a buy back plan available - at least just enough to pay exercising amount and the tax?
I have finished a year at my startup. I’ll be leaving soon. If I exercise my vested stock it’ll be more than half of my current CTC (yeah, that’s pre-tax). So that’s what I’ve decided that I do not want to be an investor in this company paying paying back the salary (which is less than what I’d command otherwise) it pays me!
PS. I knew the risks and now I’ve lived it. Never again!
Why would a startup answer these questions honestly? The biggest part of what they offer is an illusion of future payout: they'll appeal to emotions, talk about the their mission and how they help the humanity and how you will play a critical role there.
Not all startups are like that. Some of them will be quite upfront about the reality of things. In fact, the way they answer the questions could be a signal in and on itself.
It's been my experience with startups that there are different classes of shares, too, and it's generally stacked so that the founder's shares can retain their percentage of the company while everyone else's can get diluted down to nothing.
The only question you should be asking is: Are these shares listed on a public market? If yes, you can value them at market price. If no, their current value is zero.
Fewer than 10 employees... those interviewing likely know the answers and will share.
Between 10-50 employees... those interviewing may still know the answers and may still be open to sharing them.
Above 50 employees... it is increasingly likely that this information isn't known by more than a few people (those involved in the fundraising, accounts, senior leadership), and that your interviewers do not know it - if they know it at one point in time it's out of date quickly (next raise). It quick becomes something that only a very few people know and the information isn't useful/constructive to those focusing on execution (those who will be interviewing you).
The questions are good... but if you don't get answers and would choose not to take the roles on that basis, then you might want to chat to a lot of people who have been early stage and done well - because very few got answers to those questions.