3 ms·
In the (hopefully) unlikely case one founder has to be fired by the others, this keeps incentives properly aligned. Few things are as demoralizing as needing t
by kogir 13y ago
In the (hopefully) unlikely case one founder has to be fired by the others, this keeps incentives properly aligned.
Few things are as demoralizing as needing to fire a co-founder in the first place, but if they keep the same equity stake as the founders who remain it's worlds worse.
- mindcrime 13y agoSure, and that's why I can see putting a portion of the founder equity under a clause like this. But if the founder has, for example, 2 or 3 years already served building the company when the investment occurs, they have already earned some portion of their equity and it should be considered vested immediately.
- tptacek 13y agoResetting vesting is a negotiated point, but when the team starts, it should be under 100% 4 year vested terms.