[adventured]

The parent is, basically, disagreeing with the practice of making founders vest their shares when a VC comes on board.

They're saying that VCs use that approach as an additional means to control the company in case things aren't going the way they want.

The parent's position is that the founder shouldn't have to vest their shares like that, because they built the company and their shares should be regarded as fully vested since the founders put in sweat equity to start it all (essentially saying that the shares are fully paid up from the process of starting the business, and that vesting the shares takes those shares back from the founder, sort of like taking away that sweat equity effort).

[carrotleads]

Vesting should be fine if the VC's are willing to pay the founders for the sweat that was already dropped in... most of this sweat would have been at Zero pay to boot.

Asking founders to re-vest nullifies the effort they have put until now and makes it unattractive for founders to seek VC money.

Generally whoever has the greater need makes the bigger compromises...