[ww520]

I actually don't understand the straight 4 year vesting schedule for founders. It seems unfairly favoring the investors. For founders who have poured their hearts and souls into building product and market initially, they still have to wait for 4 years after accepting funding to get their full reward? And risk losing their work along the way? And yes, many founders have been forced out from their startups before their 4-year schedule.

For startups that have product and market before funding, it would be more fair to have a "regressive" vesting schedule, e.g. 25% immediately vested, 30% 1st year, 20% 2nd year, 15% 3rd year, 10% 4th year.

[Flemlord]

It prevents a founder from quitting early and keeping all their stock. The article doesn't mention it, but usually there is an acceleration clause that fully vests the shares if the company is acquired.

[rdl]

Usually I see the start date for 4 years for founder vesting back-dated to start when the people actually started working on the project, not necessarily from taking funding or even incorporation.

[rgrieselhuber]

This is in a founder's interest only if there is more than one founder. If it's a single founder, there is no incentive for them to agree to this.