Equity should always vest over time (be earned) but it shouldnt replace salary. For my guys they must stay with the company for 2 years before their equity vests.
> I did say "part", and perhaps I should have said "part of remuneration".
You just have to be careful here. I usually recommend a normal salary with a small equity and then let the person decide if they want to exchange some salary for more equity. I would also say the people wanting to take more equity should be prefered hires early on when you want your initial hires to treat the company a bit like their own.
> What I try to address is "Why would staying 2 years be rewarded as much as staying 15 years?" which was bothering me back in the days.
>
> Curious to hear your thoughts.
Oh thats simple, you usually just give them more stock with a similar vesting schedule as their old one vests. You only do it this way because its easier. The correct way (but requires a lawyer so not suitable when a company is brand new) is to create stock options such that they get a little trickly of stock each month. Stock options are legal trickery though and not the same as a direct vestment. Also its common that stock option stock is of a different class, not something I like to do, but very common.
Thanks. Although I am not likely to start another firm with employees. a) I worry too much about their life situation, and b) loosely coupled networks of small firms have served me well the last 8 years or so.
Most of my guys are contractors but to me that doesnt make a huge difference.
Yeah, assuming that the group mostly work together.
In my case, we are not that tight, 2 are even pensioners (only work "for fun"), one is much larger than the other 5.
@freemo
I did say "part", and perhaps I should have said "part of remuneration".
What I try to address is "Why would staying 2 years be rewarded as much as staying 15 years?" which was bothering me back in the days.
Curious to hear your thoughts.
@admitsWrongIfProven @jenny_wu