It's quite likely they're telling the truth. Hiring people is a distraction, and that is the last thing a startup can afford early on.

The only shady explanation I can imagine is that they don't have the money to pay you, but they hope to raise it between now and April.

Try to understand their funding situation first and foremost, but if that's in line then I'm sure they're telling the truth.

Startup founders are optimistic creatures, and 3 months seems to many like plenty of time to launch, get traction, and finish a raise. All 3 startups that have tried to hire me have wanted to do in two-three months, and upon prodding, had to admit that was because they were still in the middle of a raise that wasn't going as well as expected.

I realize that sounds quite shady, but I personally wouldn't want to make someone quit their job only to have to not be able to pay them a month later. Or am I misunderstanding it PG?

They've given you a free put option, haven't they? You can sell to them in April, or to anyone else in the intervening months. After all, even if you "accepted" for real and started tomorrow, a compelling offer in March could still move you. I'm having trouble identifying the downside here.

Ooh, a rare disagreement: your "put option" scenario makes sense if there is an enforceable contract which obligates them to actually hire him in April. Would you be blocking off April for a consulting engagement in these circumstances?

This sounds a lot less like "contract signed and PO for pre-payment cut" and more like "strong interest in resuming discussions with you several months from now." That isn't a no-op in terms of negotiations, but you're well aware (and I learned the hard way, multiple times) that there is a very-much-nonzero probability that the discussion in April begins with "Well, startups move fast. Conditions have changed and we can't bring you on. [Optional: But we're really really interested in talking to you in July. (+)]"

+ Newbie consultant mistake which I'll confess to: this basically happened exactly when a potential client slow-rolled actually getting a contract signed for three months -- I need CEO approval for this, your point-of-contact turns out to be swamped in the engagement month so let's defer for a month and so we'll defer signing for a month, hang on the contract will be signed any week now but the CEO is busy, hang on we just hired someone and need to get him to speed on this before bringing you on, etc etc -- and only then expressed negative interest in an engagement, after the date had slipped multiple times. This, naturally, has downsides for the business, both because it consumed a lot of my time in stressful will-they-won't-they admin and because I blew several weeks of availability on the "Sorry, can't work with you in $YOUR_DESIRED_TIMEFRAME, it's already committed" basis.

Older-and-wiser me would have a) been more aggressive about getting them to commit to a contract (rather than a weekly or semi-weekly ping which practically oozed with "I don't really need you to take immediate action on this."), b) released the optimistic lock on the schedule the first time the client had any issue, and c) if that particular client were to contact me again, they'd get a two line email with a contract and wiring instructions for their 100% deposit attached, to assist them in efficiently administering their vendor relations.

I would be weary. Most startups don't wait on making the right hire. If you fit the bill, and they know what they are doing, they wouldn't wait b/c of the high cost of finding another you.

It sounds to me like they might be delaying based-on raising new funds, as mentioned in other comments. However, I don't see why they wouldn't just say so. Unless, they think you might go elsewhere. If that is the case, you should know that there is a huge difference between raising a round and money in the bank. Which means, that in 3 months, they may not have the money then either.

It sounds like they aren't being transparent. But, in all fairness, when raising a round, they have a lot of vulnerability just by circulating that they are looking for money. Be careful.

why not just ask them? i think it's completely reasonable to do so. you may say something like, "i'm really excited about working at your company. it sounds like a great opportunity and the interviews have been promising. i'm willing to wait until april for the right opportunity, but would you be willing to share the reason you wish to delay? this would help me since otherwise my imagination may run wild with explanations, and with any good long term relationship openness and communication are valued. thanks!"

or whatever phrasing you like.

Did they offer you equity or stock options? If it's options, then the value of the stock options won't rise since the price of the options is priced at the value of the stock the day you start.

What you say makes sense if the stock was publicly traded, but that does not seem to obtain here.

Please elaborate.

Sure. I think the information you have applies only to options on publicly-traded stock because the value of stock that is not publicly traded is sufficiently hard to determine to prevent it from becoming a routine or traditional part of an employee's compensation package. One way to value a non-traded stock is to use the valuation used in investments, but there are not enough investment events for the phrase "the value of the stock the day you start" to make sense -- especially when you take into account that the terms of many investments are never published (with the result that the employee would need to take the startup's word on the terms).

That's how I conclude that the information you give in great grandparent does not apply in the current situation :)

From my experience, stock options are priced based on start date(correct me if this is not standard). While the price changes less frequently for private stocks compared to public stocks, they still change (Typically through investment events as you mentioned). Thus, if this particular startup raised a seed round in the coming months, then the value of the stock options would not rise as op mentioned - "The option % they've offered me would only rise in value" - since the pricing of the stock options would be different.

Oh, well, if you have direct knowledge of employers actually disbursing private-stock options this way, then never mind what I wrote.

I think it's weird.If they "really" like you then they should hire you as soon as possible.Or at least give you a temporary position.

Might be a matter of funds... They might be closing their Seed funding round and until they do so they might want to reduce risks.

They are 2 founders + 3 engineers.