4 ms·

I think this is a terrible idea. I definitely believe in the one founder mentality. There needs to be one person who drives the vision, and a team to execute

by davidu 18y ago

I think this is a terrible idea. I definitely believe in the one founder mentality. There needs to be one person who drives the vision, and a team to execute on it. If I was going to have two co-founders, I wouldn't consider offering the other founders more than a 52% / 24% / 24% split, with one person clearly defined as the leader (be it me or one of the other founders) and driver of the vision. If you aren't comfortable with that from a voting standpoint, simply require all important votes (sale of company, transfer of equity, dilution) to require a supermajority vote. Lawyers have standard language that clearly define these kinds of scenarios. But 1/3 1/3 1/3 is just asking for trouble on minor details down the road when one person needs to clearly be in charge.

silencio 18y ago
With 52% ownership of a web startup specifically belonging to a nontechnical cofounder (she would be the logical "leader" with the vision) is that who knows what will happen on a bad day. I've already shot down one suggestion of hers because it was irrelevant to the service we were going to offer. While a supermajority vote makes complete sense for important votes, 52/24/24 with the two 24% to the developers would be impossible on the less important votes if it was technical in nature and she just didn't get why they may be problematic/impossible. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with a 52/24/24 split if only she knew more. But she's relying on us to provide everything design/development-related without being fully knowledgeable about it, and without us she's dead in the water.
- davidu 18y ago
  She should be delegating all technical decisions to you. That's a part of being a leader. It requires leadership and knowing when to trust and delegate to your team.
mixmax 18y ago
I think that empirical evidence supports my view. The big problem with a 52% / 24% / 24% split is that nobody wants to be a 24% partner. Particularly since they've left the de facto running of the company to the 52% partner. I've seen people try this, and it never seems to work out.
- davidu 18y ago
  Nobody wants to be 24% partner? I find that hard to believe. I hire people offering less than 1/10 of 1% of equity and I am able to hire and retain absolutely amazing talent.

by davidu 18y ago

silencio 18y ago

With 52% ownership of a web startup specifically belonging to a nontechnical cofounder (she would be the logical "leader" with the vision) is that who knows what will happen on a bad day. I've already shot down one suggestion of hers because it was irrelevant to the service we were going to offer. While a supermajority vote makes complete sense for important votes, 52/24/24 with the two 24% to the developers would be impossible on the less important votes if it was technical in nature and she just didn't get why they may be problematic/impossible. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with a 52/24/24 split if only she knew more. But she's relying on us to provide everything design/development-related without being fully knowledgeable about it, and without us she's dead in the water.

davidu 18y ago
She should be delegating all technical decisions to you. That's a part of being a leader. It requires leadership and knowing when to trust and delegate to your team.

mixmax 18y ago

I think that empirical evidence supports my view. The big problem with a 52% / 24% / 24% split is that nobody wants to be a 24% partner. Particularly since they've left the de facto running of the company to the 52% partner. I've seen people try this, and it never seems to work out.

davidu 18y ago
Nobody wants to be 24% partner? I find that hard to believe. I hire people offering less than 1/10 of 1% of equity and I am able to hire and retain absolutely amazing talent.