Starting Up: 1 or 2, 3 is Too Much

Re:Starting Up: 1 or 2, 3 is Too Much by nathos on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @05:19PM (#970918)

Is it possible that having to use one's 2% majority share to force a decision is just as bad as a deadlock? (as far as affecting morale, a founder leaving, etc.)

We've had the 51/49 split driven into our heads for so long, I wonder if anyone out there can share the ramifications of actually having to use it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Starting Up: 1 or 2, 3 is Too Much by dstorrs on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @07:45PM (#971196)

My co-founder and I took a different tack: "50/50 and a quarter".

- 50/50 split on equity

- Decisions are made by consensus when possible (so far, always).

- If we absolutely cannot agree, we flip a coin (a quarter)

- If either of us decides to leave the company, the other must buy him out. So, if we ever actually get to a coinflip decision, we just ask ourselves "do I care about this so much that I'm willing to walk if I lose, or will I live with it?" Whatever the answer is, the decision can go forward.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Starting Up: 1 or 2, 3 is Too Much by eru on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:09PM (#973507)

Do you use the shotgun clause for buyouts? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_clause)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Starting Up: 1 or 2, 3 is Too Much by nathos on Tuesday December 01, 2009 @08:04PM (#971224)

I like this solution. A lot.

Thank you for sharing!

[ Parent | on HN ]