3 ms·
It sounds like this consideration was already made. Only some of his equity was fully vested up front to reflect prior work - presumably the remainder of his eq
by ryanbrunner 11y ago
It sounds like this consideration was already made. Only some of his equity was fully vested up front to reflect prior work - presumably the remainder of his equity was vested on a schedule (which at half a year he'd be entitled to none of most likely).
If the above is true, then it would be inappropriate to re-examine what amount of equity is fair.
- Arnt 11y agoReexamination is proper because there's disagreement. IMO, as he lays out the facts, he shouldn't give away more than a token amount. But the other founders see the facts differently. So the right thing to do is to agree on what the equity is for and then discuss what the numbers should be and why.
- crusso 11y agoThe "right thing" was to agree on that before the work was performed. It's too late to go back on that now. The original vesting agreements are all that should hold. If the other founders want to come to a new agreement with some cash compensation or other special status in exchange for his returning some of the company's equity, that's up for negotiation.
- Arnt 11y agoI've never been in a vaguely successful startup where people do the right thing. What people do is approximate, do well enough to survive and grow, and defer the Right Thing until later. Doing the Right Thing takes time.