✍️ Essay
✓ Link checked
Free
Beginner
Why we picked it
This is the canonical case for splitting close to equal, written by a YC group partner. It arms you with the exact four reasons to hand a skeptical cofounder (or your own ego): a great company takes 7 to 10 years, so who wrote the first line of code in month one is noise; more equity means more motivation; almost every startup dies, and a demotivated cofounder is how; and Seibel's blunt line that if you won't give your partner an equal share, you picked the wrong partner.
From
Y Combinator
by Michael Seibel
5 min read
- Value the 7 to 10 years of work ahead, not who had the idea or showed up first, so small year-one differences never justify a lopsided split
- A cofounder who insists on 90 percent is signaling they will under-motivate the person they most need, which is why investors read it as a red flag
- If you are not willing to split equity roughly equally, that is a sign you have the wrong cofounder, not the wrong split
Open
michaelseibel.com →
📄 Article
✓ Link checked
Free
Beginner
Why we picked it
A clean, mechanics-first explainer on why every founder, including you, goes on a 4-year vest with a 1-year cliff. It spells out exactly what the cliff does (leave before month 12, your unvested shares snap back to the company) and why investors will not fund a cap table where founders own their shares outright: unvested founder equity is how they protect the round against one of you walking after the money hits.
From
Rho
by Pia Mikhael
9 min read
- The standard is 4-year vesting with a 1-year cliff: 25 percent vests at month 12, then the rest monthly or quarterly over three years
- A cliff means a founder who quits early walks away with nothing, so the equity returns to the company instead of dead-weighting the cap table
- Investors require founder vesting to keep an investor-ready cap table and lock in long-term commitment, so fully-owned founder shares get flagged in diligence
Open
rho.co →
📄 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.
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 →