4 ms·
Yes, the basic idea is that if a founder has, for example, 25% of the equity in the company but is subject to a 5 year vesting they just don't get the shares th
by wmorein 16y ago
Yes, the basic idea is that if a founder has, for example, 25% of the equity in the company but is subject to a 5 year vesting they just don't get the shares that would have vested after they leave. If they move on after 2 years, that is 15% of the company that is no longer outstanding equity and therefore everyone else's stakes (VCs, other founders, employees) are proportionately larger.
In the original AVC post he hints about this by talking about doing the right thing and accelerating the vesting in these scenarios, but that could obviously mean a lot of things in terms of actual amounts depending on the situation.
- hga 16y agoYeah, I tend to believe that he does the right thing by the fired founders ... he couldn't have written such a dangerous to his company post without honestly believing so. That said, it should be interesting to see if and how he walks backs his posting (I'm still working through the comments, as of the half-way point he's not moved an inch). I know they made me sick to my stomach just by reminding me of, e.g., one quasi-startup situation where I was fired on trumped up grounds immediately after delivering version 1.0 (the follow-on to the MVP I'd previously written). That pretty quickly killed the product and eventually the company but did save them the highest programmer's salary in the interim.