The problem is structural. The spirit of a 4-year vest is that you should keep the employee (if they are good) and let them vest at the original rate. But if

The problem is structural. The spirit of a 4-year vest is that you should keep the employee (if they are good) and let them vest at the original rate. But if the company suddenly becomes massively more valuable and less risky, the incentive is to fire that employee and hire someone else, because you can. I think it is incumbent on us, the startup world, to call this out as bad faith, which is what it is. Legal or not, companies that do this should be forced to walk down the hall of shame. Their founders, if they are around and party to it, should be unwelcome in our midst after reneging on the social contract that makes this whole thing workable. They are shitting on the commons, and spoiling the fields for all of us, by making the decision to work for a startup that much riskier.