3 ms·
Depends on the people, but him wanting 100 is a good warning sign that you should quickly get un-involved. 50/50 is what I would expect in your situation, where
by robfitz 16y ago
Depends on the people, but him wanting 100 is a good warning sign that you should quickly get un-involved. 50/50 is what I would expect in your situation, where neither person is obviously going to be carrying the company.
If you give a founder (or early employee) more than they're going to be worth in the long term, you'll feel increasingly motivated to fire them and recover their un-vested stock. If you give them too little, they become increasingly motivated to quit and start something they can own.
From what you described, you were at a lose-lose impasse. One or other of you was going to end up unhappy, in a company-destroying sort of way. I would have quit also and would make sure to sort the ownership question out earlier next time.
Somewhat tangentially, people also tend to over-value the ownership that their "idea" should entitle them to. If someone spends 3 months thinking day and night and you just started, it can seem like they deserve a big chunk. But you have to remember, standard vesting is 4 years, so their 3 months of thought is only about 6% of the time you're each committing to the business.
- timdellinger 16y ago"If you give a founder (or early employee) more than they're going to be worth in the long term, you'll feel increasingly motivated to fire them and recover their un-vested stock." I'm surprised that I don't hear more horror stories about co-founders and early employees being kicked out just to get their un-vested stock. That's the one thing about 4 year vesting that always seemed risky to me.
- robfitz 16y agoYou have to burn a lot of bridges to do it and it leaves a mercenary mark on you and the company. I think it's more likely to destroy morale by making you bitter about each other's ownership than to actually get you to fire each other as an economic choice.