65% of high-potential startups fail due to conflict among co-founders.
So I’ve got a simple test for you.
If you and your co-founders all agree to this, intuitively and quickly — no exceptions — I’d argue you’re on the right path, as a team.
Here’s the test by Jason Lemkin - Founder of SaaStr:
➡ A 5, or better yet, 6-year vesting schedule, with
➡ A 1-year cliff starting 12 months after you close seed funding, or launch of MVP — whichever comes later. (I.e., if you leave before those 12 months, you leave with 0 shares. Zero).
➡ No vesting at all for all the hard work you’ve already done prior to that cliff. None.
➡ With full acceleration / 100% vesting if terminated after an acquisition (so-called “double trigger”).
What does this do?
If for some reason someone later doesn’t work out and steps off — all or most or at least enough of their equity will come back in the right ratio relative to the journey.
Those who don’t agree most likely:
- has something better to do
- wants to see how it goes
- sees it as risky
- doesn't 100% believe
And that means you need to work on your team.
Do you agree?
Have you tried a similar strategy?