4 ms·
What's the point of a vesting schedule and having an orderly way to exit if it would still not be acceptable? I think it's odd that people would have a problem
by sage76 9y ago
What's the point of a vesting schedule and having an orderly way to exit if it would still not be acceptable? I think it's odd that people would have a problem with him owning a stake. Should he not be compensated for the work he has put in? He was awarded shares for his work presumably.
I would say he should stick to 12%. It's derived from an industry standard. VCs who have a problem with this are, pardon my french, greedy assholes.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- GnarfGnarf 9y agoactually it's "trous de cul gloutons".
- omginternets 9y agoactually, it's "trous du cul gloutons" ;)
- beat 9y agoIt doesn't matter whether or not they're greedy assholes (it's probably safe to assume they are). It only matters whether they're willing to invest. So a red flag is a red flag. There are plenty of places for handwaving and hope in startups already. The ownership status of a departed founder should not be one of them. That should be crystal clear.
- sage76 9y agoWell, what you are essentially saying is that if you need money, VCs can and will make you dance to their tunes. That much has been confirmed by Parker Conrad himself, so I agree. It's not really a red flag since he could have a number of reasons for leaving that are not related to the business. But I guess a VC would use anything as an excuse to control and manipulate things. This really puts a giant question mark on why anyone would bother with a non-CEO founding role. Startups are hard enough as it is, adding to it the potential of losing all your equity because you had a falling out with the CEO makes it almost not worth the trouble. Engineers getting into partnerships with domineering business types should definitely watch out for this and evaluate their options. At least when you work for Microsoft and leave after 2 years, they cannot claw back what you earned over that period of time.
- kelnos 9y ago> ... adding to it the potential of losing all your equity because you had a falling out with the CEO makes it almost not worth the trouble. That's why you set up terms up front. If, when they decided on a 33/33/33 split, they also decided on a vesting schedule, they wouldn't have this problem. The OP would get some percentage value based on math, from contract terms they all agreed to when they started.
- beat 9y agoExactly. They should have had this worked out from the start, just in case. "Irreconcilable differences" isn't the only thing that can go awry, and a vesting schedule protects everyone. If you're losing all your equity after over a year of work just because you had a falling-out with co-founders (or investors), you didn't do your homework.
- sage76 9y agoYou JUST said, that the terms won't matter, the vesting won't matter if you leave, since it is a red flag. You implied that "doing your homework" may not protect you, since even vested equity of an ex-cofounder might be frowned upon. So which side are you arguing on?
- SkyMarshal 9y ago>I would say he should stick to 12%. It's derived from an industry standard. What exactly is this standard? Haven't heard it before. (serious question)
- allannienhuis 9y agothe 48 month vesting schedule described above (resulting in approx 12% figure) is a very typical vesting schedule. Industry standard might not be exactly the right term, but it's probably the most common default/boilerplate plan. edit: from the parent: A typical vesting agreement would have vested your stock over a 48-month period, so after 18 months you would have vested 33% x 18/48 = 12.375%