Thread

1. klausa · 1790582804 · focus · HN ↗

   I feel like I'm going crazy reading the comments, and I guess, big props to the author for writing this in a way that pulls it off.

   The issue here is, IMHO, not "Nvidia owes me stock in an ironclad way and gets away with it because of statue of limitations", but "I accepted an offer from Nvidia but the paperwork between the offer and the options grant differed in a way that both benefits me, and nobody noticed or cared about until now".

   The original offer was for 25k shares, vesting over 4 years.

   The options paperwork says 25k shares, vesting over 4 _quarters_.

   Now, I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a securities lawyer, but that seems like it could be reasonably chalked down to a clerical error on the options paperwork? "You made a mistake and now I can get a billion dollars more than we agreed to originally" doesn't feel like a great lawsuit!

   1. optimalsolver · 1790592345 · focus · HN ↗

      >You made a mistake and now I can get a billion dollars more than we agreed to originally

      The world "smart contract" enthusiasts dream of.

      1. _fizz_buzz_ · 1790595257 · focus · HN ↗

         Wouldn't a smart contract also have a statue of limitation built in?

         1. petcat · 1790597269 · focus · HN ↗

            The smart contract itself may have been the one that contained the mistake. We've seen this happen before and they just had to fork the chain.

            It's all nonsense. In the real world people make mistakes and a court should be allowed to override and figure out the right thing to do.

            1. dboreham · 1790609620 · focus · HN ↗

               There's nothing to prevent people from having a blockchain subject to court jurisdiction. In fact probably all blockchains are anyway, modulo the problem of enforcement.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.