3 ms·

This is a terrible idea. Hours clocked does not equal contribution. Founder vesting and 1 year cliffs exist for a reason.

tarice 14y ago
I believe "hours clocked" was only one of the contributions included in the model. From the article: > "Basically, Moyer’s idea assigns monetary value to every tangible and intangible contribution individuals make to a startup, from intellectual property and relationships to time and cash."
- narrator 14y ago
  This seems like a recipe for micromanagement and politics. Performance reviews are far less burdensome. It also sounds like a way for an unethical person to cheat their employees out of equity by creating rules that are so complicated that they lose out due to some technicality.
evilduck 14y ago
Depends. If you invest a ton of time developing something but you pivot, whoever invested the most time on that gets fucked hard. If they contributed a lot to the pre-pivot effort, that should be accounted for somewhere for something.
evilduck 14y ago
Depends. If you invest a ton of time developing something but you pivot, whoever invested the most time on that gets fucked hard. If they contributed a lot to the pre-pivot effort, that should be accounted for somewhere for something.
rmm5t 14y ago
Vesting is a reasonable approach, but it comes with its own baggage. One year cliffs are somewhat arbitrary -- afterall, why does a gregorian calendar dictate when ownership is divided? There's room for more granularity than that. What do you do with someone who needs to take a sabbatical for health or family even though they were outstanding contributors early on? What about someone who comes in several months after the original founders, but has great performance? You don't necessarily deserve more just because you were there on day 1. Dynamic splits account for all these scenarios plus more without overcomplicating the initial paperwork.

tarice 14y ago

I believe "hours clocked" was only one of the contributions included in the model. From the article: > "Basically, Moyer’s idea assigns monetary value to every tangible and intangible contribution individuals make to a startup, from intellectual property and relationships to time and cash."

narrator 14y ago
This seems like a recipe for micromanagement and politics. Performance reviews are far less burdensome. It also sounds like a way for an unethical person to cheat their employees out of equity by creating rules that are so complicated that they lose out due to some technicality.

evilduck 14y ago

Depends. If you invest a ton of time developing something but you pivot, whoever invested the most time on that gets fucked hard. If they contributed a lot to the pre-pivot effort, that should be accounted for somewhere for something.

evilduck 14y ago

rmm5t 14y ago

Vesting is a reasonable approach, but it comes with its own baggage. One year cliffs are somewhat arbitrary -- afterall, why does a gregorian calendar dictate when ownership is divided? There's room for more granularity than that. What do you do with someone who needs to take a sabbatical for health or family even though they were outstanding contributors early on? What about someone who comes in several months after the original founders, but has great performance? You don't necessarily deserve more just because you were there on day 1. Dynamic splits account for all these scenarios plus more without overcomplicating the initial paperwork.