I imagine there are big capital rounds at this point, since you are going to pay people a salary instead of compensating them with equity (?), but would you still want to enter into participation agreements with new employees to invest them in the company? Why not the co-founders? Should co-founders also obtain free movement activities in order to obtain more equity at this stage? How would a system like this be normally structured after breakeven or would a large investor get on board? I think that`s a fair point, but he also talked about how investors hate dead equity, so I`m fighting to really wind my head, if it`s really fair to theoretically be able to go with all the equity after only a year of work. How do you feel about that? Should the Slicing Pie model be combined with a time-based vesting concept to avoid this? Is that fair? A three-year vesting schedule, with a one-year stumbling block, means that I do not earn equity in the first year, that I earn one third of my equity at the end of the first year, and that I earn the remaining two-thirds of my equity in monthly increments over the next two years. The shares I`ve won are vested and the other shares I don`t have to win yet are “unvested.” When I leave the company, I will keep my shares free and the company recovers my unbrocked shares at low cost (please note that I am talking here about the shares of the founder and that the rules for stock options are different). You could say that after 3 years, the company should have formalized the agreement and allocated shares or options, etc., but I think that at least in theory, there is a reason for a vesting schedule. As soon as a company decides on the allocation of equity between founders and contributors, the next step is to formalize it. In the past, the best way to do this was to pay lawyers a relatively large sum to design founder contracts. Fortunately, that has changed. Any start-up lawyer or experienced entrepreneur will carefully recommend a standby schedule for early-stage employees who accept equity rather than cash compensation. A vesting schedule prevents a slacker employee with some equity from moving away from your business if it ceases or does not occur.
I think these agreements are a waste of time and money, because they are simply a band-aid on a much bigger and gaping wound, which is the underlying capital agreement. What it was was that “a lot of money spent on lawyers rather than marketing.” From your book: “A basic fund vesting schedule is much more complicated than a traditional vesting schedule” In this example, my westernization for 30% of equity would look like this: all authorized shares of creation would be issued in current shares, that must be used from the outset in dynamic stock allocation, or can you keep additional authorized shares in the treasury that are not issued and are not part of the dynamic stock splitting for the future, whether you want an onboard investor or a stronger corporate shaping structure? Do you/can you create more authorized actions once you`re done with Slicing Pie, if you have to spend them all on the Slicing Pie phase? Businesses are dynamic organizations that are sensitive to change.