Team, Co-founders & Legal

We split equity 60/40 a year ago and it now feels wrong because one of us did far more. Can we still change it?

A starting point

Yes, but only if both of you agree, and the window is closing fast. Before you raise and before real value exists, a re-split is a hard honest conversation and some paperwork. After investors are on the cap table it needs their sign-off and becomes painful. If the split genuinely no longer reflects contribution, reopen it now with data on who did what, not resentment. The alternative is one founder quietly checking out while holding 40%.

Go deeper

Hand-picked from around the web, each with a note on why it earns your time.

3 resources 3 link-checked Read Use

Read

📄 Article

✓ Link checked Free Intermediate

Why we picked it This walks the exact mechanics of moving equity from a 40% founder to a 60% one, and it splits the guidance into two scenarios: before money is raised (surrender-and-reissue shares at nominal value, clean and cheap) versus after (409A valuation, tax exposure, real friction). It is the concrete 'here is how the paperwork actually works' answer, not a pep talk about fairness.

Founder Equity Split: Rebalancing Cap Tables

From SPZ Legal by SPZ Legal 12 min read

Before you raise, the fix is a straightforward share surrender and reissuance at nominal value; the window is genuinely cheap right now.
Once real value exists, the same move triggers a valuation and tax consequences and often needs restarting the vesting clock.
A stock restriction agreement or amendment resets the vesting schedule so the re-split holds up later.

Open spzlegal.com →

📄 Article

✓ Link checked India Free Intermediate

Why we picked it The India-specific piece that tells you where the split actually gets signed. It separates the founders' agreement (equity, roles, IP, vesting between you) from the shareholders' agreement (your terms with investors), and stresses the timing that trips Indian founders up: get vesting in writing before shares are issued, because you cannot bolt it on retroactively once the cap table exists. It also breaks down good-leaver vs bad-leaver treatment, which is the clause that decides what a departing cofounder actually keeps.

Founder Vesting in a Shareholders' Agreement: What Startup Founders Must Know

From Treelife by Treelife 10 min read

Document cofounder equity and vesting at or before incorporation and before shares issue, since Indian law makes retroactive vesting nearly impossible without every founder consenting
The 4-year vest with 1-year cliff is standard in India too, with unvested shares forfeited to the company at nominal price in a bad-leaver exit
Negotiate clear, objective good-leaver vs bad-leaver criteria and ensure already-vested shares are retained regardless of how you exit

Open treelife.in →

Use

🛠️ Tool

✓ Link checked Free Intermediate

Why we picked it This is the tool for the exact fight you are having: it scores each founder across Idea, Business Plan, Domain Expertise, and (crucially) Commitment and Risk, then hands you a number. Demmler states plainly that a founder who is all-in is worth far more than one who will 'sit on the sideline and be cheerleaders,' so you can move the argument off feelings and onto a shared spreadsheet. Run it twice: once at today's real commitment, once assuming the part-timer goes full-time, and the gap is your renegotiation.

The Founders' Pie Calculator

From Carnegie Mellon University by Frank Demmler 15 min read

Commitment and Risk is a weighted equity factor, not an afterthought: the person keeping a salary scores lower on it, and the math reflects that
Opportunity cost counts. Someone who forgoes a career to join full-time is contributing something the hedging co-founder is not, and the pie should show it
It turns a resentment conversation into a numbers conversation both of you fill in together, which is far easier to survive than 'I feel like I'm doing more'

Open andrew.cmu.edu →