3 ms·
Not exactly. We began as a 50/50 partnership. I had spent 3 years developing some CMs software, and, to create the partnership, I was donating the software, and
by lkrubner 5y ago
Not exactly. We began as a 50/50 partnership. I had spent 3 years developing some CMs software, and, to create the partnership, I was donating the software, and he was putting up some money. As time went on, his money certainly gave him an advantage, regarding our long-term direction, but there was the sense that I had given up something important on the assumption that we were going to work hard to build a successful business. So there was a sense that his impulsiveness undercut our original understanding. The same is true of the investors who eventually put up about $2 million. They took small slices of the company on the understanding that my ex-business partner had already invested a lot of his own money, but then, that investor money was put up with the understanding that it would be transformed into a successful business, so, again, his emphasis on aesthetics rather than substance did disappoint the hopes of those investors.
- jacquesm 5y agoRight. Here is something that I've noticed some time ago and which applies to your history, but which of course isn't very useful to you now because it all has already happened, but partnerships are best formed between parties that are at the same level of commitment and with aligned goals. If not it is a fairly surefire recipe for disaster, there are some exceptions but the majority of the cases that I am familiar with the party with the money ended up either taking advantage of the other(s), ended up with a disproportionate share of the loot or was able to take more risk. This skews the outcome in their favor more often than not. It is a pocket edition of why when you're born wealthy you are likely to end up even more wealthy.