[lumost]

This is a pretty bad deal IMO. If I’m the technical cofounder the first months are basically me getting the (software) product to the point where it can be shown to customers. The next few months will see a sales founder get our first deal.

Once the product is ready to launch, A bad technically founder could find a cheaper CEO. Once the first deals are in a bad CEO could find a cheaper technical founder.

The vesting strategy encourages thinking about founders as employees that can be replaced rather than as partners.

[jdsully]

A startup is just so difficult that you really can't get away with stuff like that and survive.

It's very rare you can fire your dev team and get away with it, your product will not be good enough for years on end while you learn and grow. On the flip side customers will wonder why their point of contact is now gone if you fire the main contact they were dealing with. Plus how are you going to get more of these customers now?

[pedalpete]

Yes, but think about the other perspective. The CEO decides to leave after 2 months, and they hang on to 50%?

The vesting keeps everyone honest and in for the long-haul.

[rkk3]

Or in Facebook's case, no vesting agreement for co-founder with 20% of the company that didn't work out after a few months.

[rkk3]

There should be some sort of vesting schedule. If you really don't think a standard one is fair, It doesn't have to be over 4 years. It is also normal to have events that accelerate vesting (like an Acquisition) which in yours case could be the delivery of an MVP.

Also if your co-founder thats doing sales can't close without a product, you should get someone who can that is a very bad sign.