4 ms·

It's much like the question of what married couples can disagree on. I.e. it's not so much a question of what types of things they disagree about as whether th

by pg 14y ago

It's much like the question of what married couples can disagree on. I.e. it's not so much a question of what types of things they disagree about as whether they can figure out a modus vivendi despite their differences. Incidentally, the specific examples you mention are very worrying, because they suggest lack of commitment, which is a big predictor of failure in startups.

marcamillion 14y ago
That is my initial reaction - but given the partner's propensity to defy the odds in their other endeavors, would that be sufficient evidence to take a gamble? Also, given that this particular endeavor is one in which they have tied up their entire identity in - and they are not intentionally 'not-committing' (in fact, they have explicitly stated and done things to indicate that they are committed - just not to the extent that the other partner feels fully comfortable). Also, they are a relatively "public" figure/mini-celebrity in a particular niche, so for them to back down from such a public commitment would be more difficult than a "non-public" person. I guess, going back to the marriage analogy, it's more a question of "not because your partner doesn't love you in the way you want to be loved means that they don't love you with all they have". Is it possible that they could genuinely be fully committed, but just can't commit in the way YOU (i.e. the other partner or investor) wants them to be committed...and it still be a success.
- genwin 14y ago
  You have to accept that a partner might end up with an unfair share of equity, just like marriage. In the beginning, a partner who contributes less time than you but has a better track record of success may well deserve an equal stake.
- brudgers 14y ago
  "Is it possible that they could genuinely be fully committed, but just can't commit in the way YOU (i.e. the other partner or investor) wants them to be committed...and it still be a success[?]" The key is trust, not agreement. If there is a belief among the partners that everyone is acting in good faith, then the relationship can evolve in a healthy and productive way. Short of total commitment rather than hedging bets, my two cents on the type of disagreements mentioned earlier would be something along the lines that these various inputs be assigned a cash value, and that the company issue a promissory note payable upon liquidation or similar events to the person making the "investment" rather than converting the "investment" into equity. This connects reward with risk more directly should the company become successful and avoids the sort of wide disparity between founding partners that incentivizes legal action or engenders bitter feeling. Good luck.
  - marcamillion 14y ago
    That's a great idea - about assigning a promissory note payable at some event in the future.

by pg 14y ago

marcamillion 14y ago

That is my initial reaction - but given the partner's propensity to defy the odds in their other endeavors, would that be sufficient evidence to take a gamble? Also, given that this particular endeavor is one in which they have tied up their entire identity in - and they are not intentionally 'not-committing' (in fact, they have explicitly stated and done things to indicate that they are committed - just not to the extent that the other partner feels fully comfortable). Also, they are a relatively "public" figure/mini-celebrity in a particular niche, so for them to back down from such a public commitment would be more difficult than a "non-public" person. I guess, going back to the marriage analogy, it's more a question of "not because your partner doesn't love you in the way you want to be loved means that they don't love you with all they have". Is it possible that they could genuinely be fully committed, but just can't commit in the way YOU (i.e. the other partner or investor) wants them to be committed...and it still be a success.

genwin 14y ago
You have to accept that a partner might end up with an unfair share of equity, just like marriage. In the beginning, a partner who contributes less time than you but has a better track record of success may well deserve an equal stake.
brudgers 14y ago
"Is it possible that they could genuinely be fully committed, but just can't commit in the way YOU (i.e. the other partner or investor) wants them to be committed...and it still be a success[?]" The key is trust, not agreement. If there is a belief among the partners that everyone is acting in good faith, then the relationship can evolve in a healthy and productive way. Short of total commitment rather than hedging bets, my two cents on the type of disagreements mentioned earlier would be something along the lines that these various inputs be assigned a cash value, and that the company issue a promissory note payable upon liquidation or similar events to the person making the "investment" rather than converting the "investment" into equity. This connects reward with risk more directly should the company become successful and avoids the sort of wide disparity between founding partners that incentivizes legal action or engenders bitter feeling. Good luck.
- marcamillion 14y ago
  That's a great idea - about assigning a promissory note payable at some event in the future.