8 ms·

> I invested all my personal wealth. I think this is being overlooked. You invested all your personal wealth into this company and in return you got unvested

• danbmil99 13y ago
  This right here. The money OP invested -- whether hard cash, or equivalent deferred pay or both -- should have resulted in direct, fully vested stock, just as it does for angels and VC's. (to clarify: it should vest at the rate that the work is performed, not over some arbitrary schedule). There's this underlying meme in our community that "elbow grease" investment -- working for low pay, no benefits, rejecting other career opportunities -- is somehow worth less than an investor's cash. IMSHO, it's just the opposite -- cash typically doesn't draw down one's pool of emotional well-being and spirit the way hard work does. Work investment should be rewarded with a premium, not treated as somehow less than just money.
  • tluyben2 13y ago
    What I don't get; shouldn't it already have vested if he is a founder? I'm not sure about the system there but when I found a company those shares are mine?
    • saalweachter 13y ago
      The advice has been given several times, on HN, that founders should vest, so that you don't need to claw back 1/3 the company from a founder who walks away a month in.
      • noodle 13y ago
        This is sane advice if you're playing the standard VC game where you shop around for a co-founder, raise funds, and build a product (not necessarily in that order). OP's situation sounds more like a bootstrapped small business where he invested his life savings and blood/sweat/tears. I'm not sure that vesting shares is ideal there -- perhaps a well defined shotgun clause or similar is more reasonable to handle unruly founders.
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]