> you're saying the 90 day exercise window is a stronger anti-turnaround measure than the vesting cliff? How so? Because practically nobody could utilize that

> you're saying the 90 day exercise window is a stronger anti-turnaround measure than the vesting cliff? How so? Because practically nobody could utilize that exercise window pre-IPO so it functioned essentially as an "IPO/acquisition cliff" on top of the regular vesting schedule. Do you see what I mean? If you leave before IPO/acquisition you lose your options. Not after 1 or 2 years, but however many years it takes to get to that point of maturity. You have to stick together as a team to make it there. That's bad when companies get to, say, Pinterest or Uber levels and push off their IPO, and that's what needs fixing. But we should be extremely careful about overcorrecting in a manner that hurts vulnerable early stage startups, where the financial logic of leaving to diversify options is strong. Why triple down on one high-risk stock when you can move after a year and diversify your holdings? That kind of logic applied on a large scale could kill small startups which can't handle that kind of rotation. You have to have added incentive at the baby stage to stay and grow the company to maturity.