[georgeecollins]

I wonder if this problem could be avoided if the early technical founder insisted on having the same class of stock as the founders. IANAL but in my (limited) experience these games are easier to play when the founders (or often the C-suite people) have a different class of stock then key employees. Or that's how I have seen the game played where one employee can have a liquidity event and another doesn't, or the dilution is unequal.

I am no expert! Can someone explain to me if having the same class of stock as the founders is a meaningful protection?

[AlwaysBCoding]

I'm not sure if you even need the same class of stock as it is needing some assurance of the same liquidity rights as founders. If the company charter ensured that any secondary liquidity event would have equal participation between shareholders (including employee stock options) it would be a lot healthier and prevent this class of fraud.

It's such a garbage situation right now for employees, because even if you find product-market fit, you do the work and your company is successful you can still get dumped on by your founders taking secondaries and subsequently checking out of the company.

[georgeecollins]

Isn't "some assurance of the same liquidity rights" just a way of saying "the same class of stock". The same class of stock will have the same liquidity rights.

[AlwaysBCoding]

you don't need the same voting rights, for example