4 ms·

Titles aren't the most important thing to me in the beginning, but I'm more concerned about control. Since I'll be building the entire product, I feel that I sh

Titles aren't the most important thing to me in the beginning, but I'm more concerned about control. Since I'll be building the entire product, I feel that I should have a larger equity stake. Do you agree?

Lordarminius 10y ago
No. You should split the equity in proportion to your individual contributions to the company. Your your partner brings something to the table which you do not possess (the ideal situation) then he should be compensated accordingly. You should weigh your perceptions against his expectations and arrive at compromise that is acceptable to both parties. If you can build the product and guide it to a successful launch ( irrespective of who conceived the idea), you should do so without him because strictly speaking you do not need him. There is no place for an "idea guy" in a startup
Tomte 10y ago
If you're basically the only one who matters, why do you have a co-founder? Presumably because he brings other, non-technical skills to the table. "Since I'm doing all the marketing, selling, legal stuff, and I'm handling a thousand other nuisances (while my partner is just happily coding away), I feel I should have a larger equity stake." See the problem? As an aside: the CEO position is independent from the equity distribution.
cauterized 10y ago
Titles and equity stake between founders are orthogonal questions. There have been plenty of discussions here in the past (not to mention articles all over the place) about handling equity splits between founders. Google them up.
brudgers 10y ago
Random advice from the internet: If you're worried about what your cofounder might do to you if they have control then it's worth talking through your concerns with your cofounder and through their concerns about you. My advice is to follow Spolsky's advice: https://gist.github.com/isaacsanders/1653078 https://gist.github.com/isaacsanders/1653078 If the company is successful, then the difference between the effect of 51% of a big pile of money and 50% of a big pile of money on your future life might not be worth the potential of strained cofounder relations to that an uneven split has the potential to create. If the company is not successful the difference between 51% and 50% of nothing is not worth much either. To put it another way, if having a cofounder more than doubles the value [for some way of determining value] of the business, then it's worth 50% equity. That's the objective way to look at distributing equity.

Lordarminius 10y ago

No. You should split the equity in proportion to your individual contributions to the company. Your your partner brings something to the table which you do not possess (the ideal situation) then he should be compensated accordingly. You should weigh your perceptions against his expectations and arrive at compromise that is acceptable to both parties. If you can build the product and guide it to a successful launch ( irrespective of who conceived the idea), you should do so without him because strictly speaking you do not need him. There is no place for an "idea guy" in a startup

Tomte 10y ago

If you're basically the only one who matters, why do you have a co-founder? Presumably because he brings other, non-technical skills to the table. "Since I'm doing all the marketing, selling, legal stuff, and I'm handling a thousand other nuisances (while my partner is just happily coding away), I feel I should have a larger equity stake." See the problem? As an aside: the CEO position is independent from the equity distribution.

cauterized 10y ago

Titles and equity stake between founders are orthogonal questions. There have been plenty of discussions here in the past (not to mention articles all over the place) about handling equity splits between founders. Google them up.

brudgers 10y ago

Random advice from the internet: If you're worried about what your cofounder might do to you if they have control then it's worth talking through your concerns with your cofounder and through their concerns about you. My advice is to follow Spolsky's advice: https://gist.github.com/isaacsanders/1653078 https://gist.github.com/isaacsanders/1653078 If the company is successful, then the difference between the effect of 51% of a big pile of money and 50% of a big pile of money on your future life might not be worth the potential of strained cofounder relations to that an uneven split has the potential to create. If the company is not successful the difference between 51% and 50% of nothing is not worth much either. To put it another way, if having a cofounder more than doubles the value [for some way of determining value] of the business, then it's worth 50% equity. That's the objective way to look at distributing equity.