4 ms·

Wow. What I can suggest is that perhaps you have misperceived the purpose and nature of equity. When your venture was 0 months old, it needed a CEO to get it

Wow. What I can suggest is that perhaps you have misperceived the purpose and nature of equity. When your venture was 0 months old, it needed a CEO to get it funding. Even if he played golf the whole time and lent only his name to the venture while you beat the streets to scare that funding up, he delivered on his job. A CEO's job for a startup is not to be CMO or COO. It's to scare up money, and that money done got scared up. And now you want to move the goalposts. Even if he's still out playing golf and you're still putting in 20-hour days, that doesn't mean a 50/50 split is unfair. It's what you agreed to, on the off chance you'd be anywhere near as successful as you are today. Hate the game if you must, but your failure to understand the game has probably put you on the outs with your cofounder, and that has destroyed a lot of the value in the company, both yours and his. The whole purpose of a 50/50 split is to avoid this petty squabbling. The correct advice is thus: Quit rocking the boat, roll back your hours to 8 or less (the company is not "yours" and never was), limp toward your first half-decent exit (either the company itself or just you), and focus on a new solo startup where you can be the CEO and CTO.

3pt14159 9y ago
Yeah, 99% of the time I side with the CTO in these types of posts, but unless the money raised was trivial (sub-6 digit) then just get to work. I get not wanting an idiot to lead the company, but that is something you work out with the investors, not something you bring up to the CEO directly. I fucked this up myself in a startup in the past so I get it, but for now just work as hard as you can to get to product market fit. If you really can't stand behind this guy, consider leaving the startup and starting a new one quietly with a better management team. The fundamental rule of startups is to only team up with people you've worked with successfully before. Otherwise you'll get unlucky with fit / competence.
Rotdhizon 9y ago
I agree, seems the few others comments left at this point also agree.Whether it be a knowledge issue, a ego issue, or whatever, this person is wrong in their standing. Even if the CEO is a lazy, fruitless person, this persons job position would not exist without the CEO taking the initial risks. I'm curious to see how he responds, or if he even does. I won't imagine he will, people in cases where they are seeking approval generally don't respond well to criticism, mass criticism at that.
harel 9y ago
I think at this point it might be too late as the boat has been rocked and by the sound of it, and OP response to another comment on this thread, I say it's tilting. If I was the CEO, and the person I hired and gave a very generous 50% comes to me with that kind of demand, I'd be realising I've made a mistake. It doesn't matter how good someone is. Everyone is replaceable, and sometimes one's perceived "incompetence" is only that - perceived. We have one side of a story and if I learned one thing from the internet is that every story is like a coin - with 3 sides.
- meric 9y ago
  He can try fix it by giving an apology, having thought over it and missed the value his colleagues contributed, etc.
corobo 9y ago
I feel this thread is also an argument for never doing an exact 50/50 split. 55/45, 51/49, 50.00001/49.99999, anything that allows a tie to be broken. It doesn't need to have any meaningful financial value there just needs to be a veto bit
- 3pt14159 9y ago
  Except you're going to have to pay me a real salary if you expect me to take 49.99%. That last bit is worth a lot, not just in terms of actual power but also in terms of faith and personal dynamics.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - corobo 9y ago
    Another option is a third founder. It's literally just a tie break if there's a stalemate that'll kill the company anyway. In that situation we'd be negotiating 0.01% of nothing Edit: To additionally clarify, I never said it'd be me with the veto bit

3pt14159 9y ago

Yeah, 99% of the time I side with the CTO in these types of posts, but unless the money raised was trivial (sub-6 digit) then just get to work. I get not wanting an idiot to lead the company, but that is something you work out with the investors, not something you bring up to the CEO directly. I fucked this up myself in a startup in the past so I get it, but for now just work as hard as you can to get to product market fit. If you really can't stand behind this guy, consider leaving the startup and starting a new one quietly with a better management team. The fundamental rule of startups is to only team up with people you've worked with successfully before. Otherwise you'll get unlucky with fit / competence.

Rotdhizon 9y ago

I agree, seems the few others comments left at this point also agree.Whether it be a knowledge issue, a ego issue, or whatever, this person is wrong in their standing. Even if the CEO is a lazy, fruitless person, this persons job position would not exist without the CEO taking the initial risks. I'm curious to see how he responds, or if he even does. I won't imagine he will, people in cases where they are seeking approval generally don't respond well to criticism, mass criticism at that.

harel 9y ago

I think at this point it might be too late as the boat has been rocked and by the sound of it, and OP response to another comment on this thread, I say it's tilting. If I was the CEO, and the person I hired and gave a very generous 50% comes to me with that kind of demand, I'd be realising I've made a mistake. It doesn't matter how good someone is. Everyone is replaceable, and sometimes one's perceived "incompetence" is only that - perceived. We have one side of a story and if I learned one thing from the internet is that every story is like a coin - with 3 sides.

meric 9y ago
He can try fix it by giving an apology, having thought over it and missed the value his colleagues contributed, etc.

corobo 9y ago

I feel this thread is also an argument for never doing an exact 50/50 split. 55/45, 51/49, 50.00001/49.99999, anything that allows a tie to be broken. It doesn't need to have any meaningful financial value there just needs to be a veto bit

3pt14159 9y ago
Except you're going to have to pay me a real salary if you expect me to take 49.99%. That last bit is worth a lot, not just in terms of actual power but also in terms of faith and personal dynamics.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- corobo 9y ago
  Another option is a third founder. It's literally just a tie break if there's a stalemate that'll kill the company anyway. In that situation we'd be negotiating 0.01% of nothing Edit: To additionally clarify, I never said it'd be me with the veto bit