4 ms·
I think equal equity is a time bomb. I advocate 50.01, 49.99 if it is two ways. It gives the person a minor trump card in a true deadlock that can save the co
by thatthatis 13y ago
I think equal equity is a time bomb. I advocate 50.01, 49.99 if it is two ways. It gives the person a minor trump card in a true deadlock that can save the company, but not enough that the long term wealth diference is anything but a rounding error.
- brudgers 13y agoIt's 50 50 that the person who knows how to save the company in such a scenario is the minority owner. Collaboration is better than lines in the sand. Throw a minority partner into the mix - say 5%. What good is 47.6%?
- thatthatis 13y agoI think it is more like 20/20/60. 20% chance that either person is right and 60% chance that both solutions will work. I agree that a minority partner is also a good solution. I'm not arguing against 45/45/10. I am arguing against any proportion of initial equity that could lead to a 50/50 deadlock (which includes 25/25/25/25 with 4 founders).
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dllthomas 13y ago"I'm not arguing against 45/45/10." What about abstentions?
- brudgers 13y agoThe reason I mention this is that in 45/45/10 the 10 has as much control as either of the 45. Control is what matters. The author's hardball for 67% gave him the appearance of control so long as his friend didn't treat the business as a passive source of income. And treating his third as a passive source of income is identical to the extra third the author won. Deciding equity based on work done in the past is a mistake. Equity should be decided based on sharing the work going forward into the future. That's why 50-50 is good - it is focused on the future.