6 ms·

Oh god. I think insane vesting schedules are terrible. Let's not make 10-year vesting schedules. https://zachholman.com/posts/the-new-10-year-vesting-schedule

• terravion 10y ago
  Why do you think that being the boat for the length of time to create the value is insane? As the continuing founder in a start-up, I'm pretty sensitive to the idea that the reward is at the end of the marathon. Why would splitting based on a marathon-length rather than a 5k race be insane if what you think you're doing is marathon running?
  • Eridrus 10y ago
    Why does the initial grant have to be enough for the entirety of the company's growth? Why don't you just issue refresher grants to people who stick around?
  • madelinecameron 10y ago
    I just don't think value is only delivered over a 10 year period. It should take a decade (or 7 years) to get your initial 'reward'. It doesn't make sense to be locked into something for a decade that may not even be the same in a decade. Just personal preference though, maybe someone will be up for decade of vesting.
    • runesoerensen 10y ago
      > I just don't think value is only delivered over a 10 year period. It should take a decade (or 7 years) to get your initial 'reward'. I'm assuming you meant "shouldn't", but that's not what a 10-year vesting schedule would mean either (all other things being equal); With a one-year cliff you'd receive your "initial reward" (i.e. fully vested equity) by the end of the first year, then continue to vest on a monthly/quarterly/yearly basis in accordance with the vesting schedule.