> I've also had a "useless" "co-founder" try and hold onto equity that didn't vest, after he left and contributed little.
What I am about write is blasphemy in this community, but needs to be said.
Contributions to a startup are not quantifiable. There are truism that float around the startup community like, "Ideas are worthless, execution is everything." these are helpful motivation tools but they create a black and white world, in a universe that is multi-dimensional.
When someone has an idea and someone else executes and the guy with the idea wants his "fair share" or in less extreme cases, like leaving before shares vest, there is this belief that one side is entitled to all equity and the other side didn't contribute anything.
In truth, the other side sees things differently, and that doesn't make one side right and the other wrong. It is never that black and white and general ideas like, "execution is everything" are great as general ideas but don't translate to every situation and each case needs to be evaluated independently.
If someone contributed to a startup and the other side has a different opinion about the value of that contribution. This is what the courts are for. Their job is to help decide, in this specific instance the value of that contribution was and how it relates to the nature of the agreement made between the parties.
Truism are not legal arguments and it's a mistake to assume that situations about contribution levels can be settled with them. Both sides believe they are in the right and are being wronged by the other party.
There are two ways to proceed from there. You can dig your heels in the ground on your position and try to pay to make the problem go away...Or you can accept that the other side also has a leg to stand on... try to understand their position and come to terms that leaves no one happy, but everyone satisified. Thats what compromise is about.
I think the startup community and this post is evidence of it believes that what they know is above the law.
This is a simple case of a dispute about money. Pretending it is about good guys and bad guys is being dishonest to yourself and others.
I agree with most of your post. I was trying my best to find common ground with sama's perspective in his. Because I have had similarly crappy situations that did make me incredibly frustrated. You bring up good points though:
> What I am about write is blasphemy in this community, but needs to be said.
> Contributions to a startup are not quantifiable. There are truism that float around the startup community like, "Ideas are worthless, execution is everything." these are helpful motivation tools but they create a black and white world, in a universe that is multi-dimensional.
Amen, who gives a damn how fast you clmb the ladder if it's placed in the wrong spot? And it's such a simplistic point; often times the whole point of execution is to find a better idea. These ideas could be discovered through a combination of mental reflection, talking to customers, building prototype, ...
> I think the startup community and this post is evidence of it believes that what they know is above the law.
> This is a simple case of a dispute about money. Pretending it is about good guys and bad guys is being dishonest to yourself and others.
Yep. I don't care how many Airbnb's and Dropbox's you fund, you don't get to say what constitutes good and bad in a community.
At the end of the day, I think Sam got frustrated, acted a bit impulsively, and probably regrets how things turned out with the original post. But hey, mistakes build leaders, so if someone as public as him can reflect on it then all the better.
> so if someone as public as him can reflect on it then all the better.
I eagerly await this much anticipated reflection. For what I can tell he is a sincere, integrity driven, human being. Money has a way to messing with us and causing us to do all sorts of things we regret. I just hope he can see past his blind spots once the initial frustration wears off.
What I am about write is blasphemy in this community, but needs to be said.
Contributions to a startup are not quantifiable. There are truism that float around the startup community like, "Ideas are worthless, execution is everything." these are helpful motivation tools but they create a black and white world, in a universe that is multi-dimensional.
When someone has an idea and someone else executes and the guy with the idea wants his "fair share" or in less extreme cases, like leaving before shares vest, there is this belief that one side is entitled to all equity and the other side didn't contribute anything.
In truth, the other side sees things differently, and that doesn't make one side right and the other wrong. It is never that black and white and general ideas like, "execution is everything" are great as general ideas but don't translate to every situation and each case needs to be evaluated independently.
If someone contributed to a startup and the other side has a different opinion about the value of that contribution. This is what the courts are for. Their job is to help decide, in this specific instance the value of that contribution was and how it relates to the nature of the agreement made between the parties.
Truism are not legal arguments and it's a mistake to assume that situations about contribution levels can be settled with them. Both sides believe they are in the right and are being wronged by the other party.
There are two ways to proceed from there. You can dig your heels in the ground on your position and try to pay to make the problem go away...Or you can accept that the other side also has a leg to stand on... try to understand their position and come to terms that leaves no one happy, but everyone satisified. Thats what compromise is about.
I think the startup community and this post is evidence of it believes that what they know is above the law.
This is a simple case of a dispute about money. Pretending it is about good guys and bad guys is being dishonest to yourself and others.
Edit: spelling