5 ms·

Thanks for the simplification and especially for the ratios for the co-founders. We do have a prototype as I'm also technical but I think we would benefit from

• jtfairbank 11y ago
  Investors will have problems if the gap is too large. They'll wonder what discussions aren't being had with the 20% cofounder, if that person is motivated to be part of the company for the long term, etc. Unless you've done this many times before, its not really that big a deal to do an even split. Assuming success, you'll likely end up with less than half of your original equity, so what is a 20% gap now (huge!) might be 5% or less when you exit (ie no big deal). Of course, go with a vesting schedule and cliff. And to make up for them coming on later, perhaps you start with 40 / 40 / 20 but have a plan (that you share with them) to grant them additional equity each year until it's roughly even, so as they prove their worth and commitment you make them an even cofounder.
• brudgers 11y ago
  When would it make sense to go 40%-40%-20%? Maybe in some corner case where it isn't a waste of energy? That's why it is worth at least considering Joel Spolsky's advice: https://gist.github.com/isaacsanders/1653078 https://gist.github.com/isaacsanders/1653078 By the way, 40-40-20 is no better from a control perspective than even thirds. Two can sell the other out. And control is a bigger issue than percentages in the sort of pissing contests that matter. Even worse, the person with 20% has more to gain by cutting one of the 40%'s out...as do each of the 40%'s.