4 ms·

I few times now, I heard the recommendation that founders should split the equity evenly, because it's all about execution and you should keep everyone motivate

by k__ 6y ago

I few times now, I heard the recommendation that founders should split the equity evenly, because it's all about execution and you should keep everyone motivated to give their best. Oxide seems to extend this principle to their employees.

jasode 6y ago
>, I heard the recommendation that founders should split the equity evenly, [...] Oxide seems to extend this principle to their employees. Fyi... The original blog post says they didn't (or plan to) split equity evenly among all employees: >As for how equity is determined, it really deserves its own in-depth treatment, but in short, equity compensates for risk -- and in a startup, risk reduces over time: the first employee takes much more risk than the hundredth.
fairity 6y ago
> It’s all about execution and you should keep everyone motivated to give their best. If your goal is to keep everyone motivated, issuing equity evenly to all employees is far from ideal. More ideal is issuing equity proportionally based on actual contribution to a company’s value. You probably also want to issue more equity to employees who are taking more risk by working at the startup. Either way, I think you’ll find that founders get more equity.
- adimitrov 6y ago
  Says who? Says you. Based on what? I hear this sentiment a lot, and its proponents usually don't spend any thought on disproving other views. Such as, maybe it's better to have everyone motivated well, instead of having a few people excessively motivated while the rest trudges along. Maybe it depends on the field? Do you need superstars or are you only as fast as you slowest team mate? And maybe, but I barely dare say it out loud here, maybe compensation has less to do with performance and more to do with who eats dinner/cracks a beer with whom. In this case, how would the motivation argument even hold? I don't know which one is true. I wouldn't try to sound too convinced of any one of these unless I knew the situation of the business very well.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

by k__ 6y ago

jasode 6y ago

>, I heard the recommendation that founders should split the equity evenly, [...] Oxide seems to extend this principle to their employees. Fyi... The original blog post says they didn't (or plan to) split equity evenly among all employees: >As for how equity is determined, it really deserves its own in-depth treatment, but in short, equity compensates for risk -- and in a startup, risk reduces over time: the first employee takes much more risk than the hundredth.

fairity 6y ago

> It’s all about execution and you should keep everyone motivated to give their best. If your goal is to keep everyone motivated, issuing equity evenly to all employees is far from ideal. More ideal is issuing equity proportionally based on actual contribution to a company’s value. You probably also want to issue more equity to employees who are taking more risk by working at the startup. Either way, I think you’ll find that founders get more equity.

adimitrov 6y ago
Says who? Says you. Based on what? I hear this sentiment a lot, and its proponents usually don't spend any thought on disproving other views. Such as, maybe it's better to have everyone motivated well, instead of having a few people excessively motivated while the rest trudges along. Maybe it depends on the field? Do you need superstars or are you only as fast as you slowest team mate? And maybe, but I barely dare say it out loud here, maybe compensation has less to do with performance and more to do with who eats dinner/cracks a beer with whom. In this case, how would the motivation argument even hold? I don't know which one is true. I wouldn't try to sound too convinced of any one of these unless I knew the situation of the business very well.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]