19 ms·
A 6 year vesting schedule would be highly unusual. AFAIK it’s usually 2 (or maybe up to 4) years after an acquisition. Therefore I don’t think that this was a f
by TheDom 7y ago
A 6 year vesting schedule would be highly unusual. AFAIK it’s usually 2 (or maybe up to 4) years after an acquisition. Therefore I don’t think that this was a factor in his decision.
- trevyn 7y agoThings are different at that high level. Not always “vesting” technically, but various retention bonus payout milestones.
- weaklearner 7y agoI don't have a citation here but I think facebook tried to create a slow vesting schedule for these aquihires so they would have golden shackles
- the_watcher 7y agoIs this just your assumption? The WhatsApp acquisition was pretty famously on a 4 year vest [0], not sure why IG would have been different. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/whatsapp-founder-jan-koum-rest-and-vest-for-450-million-facebook-stock-2018-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/whatsapp-founder-jan-koum-re...
- weaklearner 7y agommm I was pretty sure I read it. I cannot find the reference so I think you are right. I'm going to edit my comment.
- kerng 7y agoIt's also not uncommon for companies to drop that and have majority vest quicker to get rid of founders faster (provide a good encouraging deal) - especially if they dont play ball.