Sounds like Cap Table hell. If you're only there for 3 months, why should you get rewarded when chances are you didn't contribute anything to the company? I think a 1 year cliff makes even more sense for a startup than an established company because you really should contribute something before hitting the cap table as someone with employee options.
I think you can contribute a meaningful amount to a startup in 3 months. Arguably the top reason to join a startup is to make faster impact. I'm not saying this is possible at all startups, but most startups yes.
Options/equity are a component of your compensation and I'm questioning the reasons we wait a year to get it. I think it would be more employee-friendly to smooth out the vesting schedule.
Startups seem to be having a hard time finding talent (probably why this thread was started). Everyone already thinks you work on more interesting problems and make more impact at a startup, but it seems like those reasons alone aren't attractive enough right now. If startups can't pay $300k/yr cash, then they need to think outside the box to entice people to join.
What burned me working at startups was the 1-year cliff and 3-month exercise window after leaving. I'd consider working for a startup again if those two disadvantages changed. Until then, I'm very happy at BigCorp.
I disagree, I don't think anyone can contribute meaningfully in 3 months. I think a one year cliff is perfectly reasonable for a startup. We will agree to disagree, but I don't think any startup will agree with you, it rewards people who stick around for too short a period of time and makes their cap table much harder to maintain.
