Quartz 4

lora-vs-pync-decision

5 min read

Lora vs Pync — decision framework

Two offers, both active. Lora work trial in progress (started 2026-05-06, day 8 today). Pync offer letter dated 2026-04-22, NDA path agreed, decision window open. Captured because the two offers test fundamentally different bets and I need the framework on paper before the Lora 2-week conversation lands.

Side-by-side

DimensionLoraPync
Title”founding engineer” (functional CTO scope)CTO
Equity2% verbal8% in writing before Phase 2
Cash$180k verbal full-timePhase 1 125 floor) trial → Phase 2 18k floor) → Phase 3 $180–220k base
Vesting”Backdated to start” verbal4yr / 1yr cliff, starts at fractional CTO entry (credits trial)
Anti-dilution / refreshNot discussedNo anti-dilution, but refresh grants at financing + pro-rata rights
Structure on paperNone at day 8NDA signed, corporate counsel engaged, phased structure in writing
Employment structureW2 (implied), C2C not discussedC2C via Script Wizards LLC until visa-enabled W2 conversion
StageThree rounds in, $3–5M targeted this monthPre-seed unfunded; ~3M target
TeamCEO Michelle + me + new grad engCEO Claire (non-tech) + CPO + COO + me; 2 firmware + 1 PM in Korea
Tech riskSoftware, well-scopedThermal safety defect on LTE pet wearable; lowest-bid CN firmware; no eng leader 12+ mo
Product tractionReal, alpha launching to 30 testersHardware launch July 2026 Thailand, pre-launch
Burn / runwayUnknown to me$155k/mo, 18–21mo runway post-close
CEO readPattern of stringing engineers along; “busy” twice in a rowStrategy-driven, non-technical, but professionally run process
Time commitmentFull-time impliedPhase 1 15–20 hrs/wk, scaling
Decision window2-week trial mark = 2026-05-202–3 weeks from 2026-05-04, open

The bet each one represents

Lora: lower variance. Product traction exists. Software, no hardware risk. The work itself is intellectually engaging. Failure mode is the comp/contract gap and the CEO’s pattern — not the product.

Pync: higher variance, higher upside. Real CTO title with engineering org build-out from zero. 8% is correctly priced for the role at this stage, not generous. Failure modes are real and stacked: thermal defect could become a regulatory issue, raise might underfill, hardware timelines slip, non-technical CEO has run 12+ months without engineering leadership.

Corey’s read: Lora is “easier sell, chill job.” Pync’s 8% framed as “kind of a red flag tbh” — that read is wrong. 8% for sole CTO at unfunded pre-seed with no prior engineering leadership is market or slightly low. Lora’s 2% for the same functional scope is the anomaly.

What the Lora work trial has produced as signal

The 1-month work trial was specifically designed to surface pre-seed-CEO failure modes. Day 8 has delivered:

  • Verbal full-time offer at day 3 with no follow-up paper
  • Same “busy” pattern as the prior founding engineer (who spent 2 months on contract via OPT before W2)
  • No NDA, no IP assignment, no signed equity grant after 8 days of building foundation IP
  • New-grad-as-only-other-eng framed as “cost discipline” — actual cost is loaded onto me as single point of failure

This is dispositive on the CEO/operations dimension. The product, the team chemistry, and the technical work are still positive signal. The CEO’s ability to convert verbal trust into written commitment is failing the test the trial was built to run.

What Pync has done that Lora hasn’t

  • Written phased comp structure
  • Equity locked in writing before Phase 2 entry
  • NDA signed
  • Corporate counsel engaged
  • C2C structure via my LLC accepted explicitly
  • Visa-enabled W2 conversion thought through
  • Refresh grants and pro-rata rights specified

Everything Lora hasn’t done is what Pync did before I started any work.

Three-branch decision at the 2-week Lora mark (2026-05-20)

Branch 1: Lora produces written terms at 3–5% + remote/stipend, clears the invoice.

  • Stay through Lora trial month.
  • Run Pync Phase 1 (15–20 hrs/wk) in parallel if I can hold the boundary.
  • Decide at Lora trial end (~2026-06-06) with both signals fully in.

Branch 2: Lora produces written terms at original 180/2% or treats invoice as adversarial.

  • Walk from Lora.
  • Take Pync Phase 1.
  • Convert to fractional CTO at Pync Phase 2 entry if Phase 1 goes well.

Branch 3: Lora goes silent or stalls past the pause.

  • Walk from Lora.
  • Take Pync Phase 1.
  • Pursue unpaid-wage claim if invoice unpaid past state statutory window.

Pre-decision asks I still need to resolve

  • Can Pync Phase 1 (15–20 hrs/wk) realistically run alongside the rest of the Lora trial month without burning me out further than week 2 already has? (Likely no. Honest answer matters.)
  • State wage-timing law for waiting-time penalty exposure on the Lora invoice.
  • My visa/employment status — does C2C-until-visa-enabled-W2 apply to me the same way it applies in the Pync structure?
  • Walk number on Lora going-forward terms. Current draft: 180/2% with no remote, no C2C path = walk.
  • Pync thermal defect memo — is the pre-NDA memo recommending LTE-drop for v1 going to be received as engineering rigor or as scope reduction? Claire’s reaction to that memo is my Pync signal.

Rules of engagement

  • Do not disclose Pync to Lora. Pync is BATNA. The moment it surfaces, the Lora conversation reframes from “pay me for work and write a contract” to “match the other offer.” Different conversation, weaker position.
  • Do not sign anything at Lora that retroactively reclassifies the trial period or releases the unpaid-wage claim.
  • Do not commit to Pync Phase 2 until pre-seed close lands. Pre-seed unfunded at the time of offer; the soft commit needs to land for the structure to mean anything.
  • Don’t take Pync uncritically because Lora is failing. The thermal defect is a real product/regulatory risk. The non-technical CEO with 12 months no eng leadership is real. Two real risks, in writing, beats one verbal promise without paper — but both need active management.

Cross-references

Graph View

Backlinks