3 ms·
I'm an advocate of even splits. IMO the logic behind having a dominant founder derives from classic corporate management where you have a boss and a team. I d
by johnrob 13y ago
I'm an advocate of even splits. IMO the logic behind having a dominant founder derives from classic corporate management where you have a boss and a team. I don't see that as a good baseline for a team of founders.
- jordn 13y agoI think I agree. I don't believe a startup can work if the focus is on equity grabbing or if any agreement leaves one founder feeling less committed to the project than the other. A sense of ownership is one of the big motivators that helps you to fall in love and commit to an idea. So if there's something on paper that makes it like the idea is less yours than the other co-founder, I think it will cause less commitment as a result. Better to own less of successful company than all of nothing.
- jvandenbroeck 13y agoI think the equity grabbing thing is a bit over rated, although it feels like that if you're starting something and want to get other people on board. Get rational and communicate. Sometimes it's even funny, at a 2 day hacking/business event, you make something with 6 people, two of these people make 90+% of the product. 2 people just stand by the team the whole time barely contributing and 2 people (business) people, are greatly contributing to strategy. At the end of the hacking event there is a talk about continuing with the project and starting something up, it is so obvious that it is almost not even brought up. People kinda evade the topic. Then somebody starts to talk about it and everybody quickly agrees that 50/50 split is the obvious fair way to start something. I don't have to tell you this 'startup' didn't last that long :)