[robryan]

Fairly clear cut that the original person should take a bigger share. One thing I would preface that with is that with is that if the cofounder comes in and fundamentally changes the business into something much bigger/ better than it was they are entitled to equal or close to equal.

I think the hard case is when you start off with equal and then down the track one founder has a different level of enthusiasm and expectation on level of time involved. If down the track you are working long ours and just about every day and your cofounder is treating it as a 9-5 there is bound to be friction.

[loumf]

That's why he also recommended a vesting schedule. Your case is a hard one, but it works for the case where someone gets 50% and then decides to bow out.

For 9-5 vs. long hours -- you need to have this conversation up-front. If there's any doubt that you aren't on the same page or just agree with differences (and compensate fairly), then this is not a good match.

[pmarca]

Yes. This is why it is often a good idea to restart founder vesting when you raise a funding round -- it is EXTREMELY rare for a founding team to actually hold together all the way through to success. Generally at least one founder feels that at least one other founder didn't pull their weight, and without vesting there's no way to fix this.

[ValentineC]

I'm trying to wrap my head around your idea of "restarting" a vesting period. Do you mean that all unvested shares are reset to a 4-year vesting period after a round of funding?

I'm probably just confused. Would you mind elaborating?

[shiraabel]

Excuse my complete ignorance on this - but have you or Mark written about it? (And yes I did google it and came up with a bunch of articles about founders and vesting, however nothing popped out about restarting founder vesting when raising a new funding round.)