4 ms·
> but "work for free" isn't the right description if it involves retaining half of the company (which has revenue and aspires to be worth more). I suppose that
by Shank 5y ago
> but "work for free" isn't the right description if it involves retaining half of the company (which has revenue and aspires to be worth more).
I suppose that's a fair interpretation of the situation. In my opinion, though, if the company is heading downwards in revenue enough to suggest sacrificing salaries, the ownership stake isn't worth much in the moment. The value might be earned by working on the project, but I personally value the shares of a company that can't pay its employees exceedingly low.
- kjs3 5y agoShares are worth little until they aren't. If I'm the partner taking the major risk and the other is "I'll work on it when it doesn't interfere with $DAYJOB", then I'm going to protect my (possible) upside and try to recoup the equity. Just business.
- tomhallett 5y agoBut all of the equity? I think the person leaving should walk away with some equity.
- kjs3 5y agoI didn't say it was an equitable parting, and I agree with you that a founder should have something. But we don't know how the parting negotiations went down, nor what they were willing to fight for, nor how involved lawyers were (because lawyers == money lost and at some point you have to realize that sucking up your residual equity paying lawyers to fight for it is counterproductive (financially and personally)).