> So nobody here is advocating for taking away anything granted by contract. You can't really say that when the contract is opaque. Most recruits do not unders

> So nobody here is advocating for taking away anything granted by contract. You can't really say that when the contract is opaque. Most recruits do not understand that the tax consequences of the 90 day window supersede the vesting schedule, to the point where vesting is effectively meaningless. You're concerned that if employees can actually keep their options that they will be more mercenary and diversify their startup portfolio. Ok, that's not an unreasonable concern. Diversification is a smart investment strategy with high-risk assets. But the issue here is firstly one of transparency. The reasoning you laid out is opaque. What does it mean to require employees to buy their options "to take the risk on the gain" when in most cases they can't afford to buy them? Furthermore, haven't they already risked their time and effort? Why would "no longer adding value to the company" justify the loss of previously vested options? Look, if what you're aiming for is a disincentive for mercenary employees, that's totally fine. But make it transparent. Make it a backloaded vesting schedule. Make it a cliff. Make it a cliff all they way out to the IPO if you want. But that's how you need to present it to recruits: clearly and transparently. Otherwise you are simply misleading recruits into thinking they will keep more than they really can.