[terravion]

Why do you think that being the boat for the length of time to create the value is insane? As the continuing founder in a start-up, I'm pretty sensitive to the idea that the reward is at the end of the marathon. Why would splitting based on a marathon-length rather than a 5k race be insane if what you think you're doing is marathon running?

[madelinecameron]

I just don't think value is only delivered over a 10 year period. It should take a decade (or 7 years) to get your initial 'reward'.

It doesn't make sense to be locked into something for a decade that may not even be the same in a decade. Just personal preference though, maybe someone will be up for decade of vesting.

[runesoerensen]

> I just don't think value is only delivered over a 10 year period. It should take a decade (or 7 years) to get your initial 'reward'.

I'm assuming you meant "shouldn't", but that's not what a 10-year vesting schedule would mean either (all other things being equal); With a one-year cliff you'd receive your "initial reward" (i.e. fully vested equity) by the end of the first year, then continue to vest on a monthly/quarterly/yearly basis in accordance with the vesting schedule.

[Eridrus]

Why does the initial grant have to be enough for the entirety of the company's growth? Why don't you just issue refresher grants to people who stick around?