4 ms·
The quality of comments on HN seems to be falling pretty quickly. It's a good idea. I think technical founders are probably a little underrated in your model.
by martinpannier 15y ago
The quality of comments on HN seems to be falling pretty quickly.
It's a good idea. I think technical founders are probably a little underrated in your model.
Otherwise, I don't know if equity calculators are a great solution in general. They just tend to shift the problem from the importance startuppers give to different topics to the importance a program gives to these topics. On top of that, discussing non-round amounts >10% (such as 19%, 23%, etc.) just gives much too much importance to a few %, which paradoxically makes discussions tougher down the road. Better to round things up (70/20/10, 60/40) and just leave things at that.
- alain94040 15y agoI didn't implement rounding in the first version for a very simple reason: in the case of 3 equal founders, the answer should be 33.33/33.33/33.33. So rounding to the nearest 5 or 10 is wrong. If anyone has a quick algorithm that will provide "smart rounding" following fractions, I'm interested. Otherwise, I'll figure it out.
- phlux 15y agoPersonally I think that companies with 3 equal founders need to get 30 each with 10 reserved for initial funding/employees/others.
- nitrogen 15y agoIs it really necessary to allocate less than 100% of initial shares when future rounds of funding and option grants can be handled by diluting the existing shares?