> I like to think Sam is a relatively sane guy with good intentions. So do I. I think he genuinely believes everything in this article and it's not out of self

> I like to think Sam is a relatively sane guy with good intentions. So do I. I think he genuinely believes everything in this article and it's not out of self-interest. I just disagree. > If you believe equity should be granted out of thin air for working on something then well, you live in a different world than I do my friend. First of all, all equity is granted "out of thin air." It's an abstract concept. Without an agreed upon definition of the conditions whereby equity can be lost, it inherently flows to whoever worked on the project. If someone worked on a startup for 11 months and then quit, should he still get equity? What about if he wasn't getting paid? What if he was fired? What if it was actually for 4 years? There isn't any intrinsic answer to these questions and that's why we have legal agreements which spell out the answers. Just because an agreement wasn't signed does not mean Jeremy isn't entitled to compensation. A company can't refuse to pay you if they forgot to give you an official offer letter. I absolutely agree that contracts should be used to lock these things down. But there weren't contracts in place. Sam makes a lame appeal to a universal "implied" contract of there being 1-year cliffs, but the fact is that many people wouldn't sign such a contract. (I, for one, don't think it's ethical to leave founders who forego salaries with literally no compensation, even if they leave in the first year.)