3 ms·
1. That's the standard vesting arrangement for non-founders. I have trouble imagining a cliff for founders.
by adrianscott 15y ago
1. That's the standard vesting arrangement for non-founders. I have trouble imagining a cliff for founders.
- jfarmer 15y agoIt's normal in my experience. A cliff of some kind has been part of every incorporation agreement I've seen or signed. http://startuplawyer.com/incorporation/why-your-startups-founders-stock-should-vest-over-time http://startuplawyer.com/incorporation/why-your-startups-fou... http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2007/07/19/what-should-the-vesting-terms-of-founder-stock-be-before-a-venture-financing/ http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2007/07/19/what-should-t... Moreover, if I were working with a co-founder, I would (and have) insist we vest on that schedule, and certainly not monthly from day 1. There are a few reasons: 1. I don't want my co-founder leave before a year and having a chunk of the company. Likewise, I want to do right by my co-founder. If I leave before a year is up, it wouldn't be right for me to own a chunk of the company. 2. It's inequitable for the founders to have different vesting schedules than employees. What happens if someone joins the team pre-financing? If they get the same terms as the founders, then what about an early employee vs. a later employee? It makes for a weird, political situation. 3. It makes it easier to raise money. If you're vesting on the same terms as your investors they have no basis to negotiate over that term; they'll just check the box and move on. It passes the "blink test." These are just my experiences, so YMMV.