
50/50 Cofounders - Straubiz
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/05/5050-cofounders.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AVc+%28A+VC%29&utm_content=Netvibes
======
larrik
All of this seems to assume that 50/50 ownership is 50/50 power. That really
doesn't have to be the case (and usually shouldn't).

I think it was Joel Spolsky who explained that point of view best some time
ago.

Beyond his explanations, though, the non-tech world has lots of "silent
partners," people who may own half or more of the company but give up the
actual power of running it. Ideally, you give up some ego, power, and
responsibility without giving up freedom and financials.

------
swombat
I don't believe in the one-size-fits-all idea. My thoughts:
<http://swombat.com/2011/5/10/founder-equity>

~~~
mduerksen
I think you're onto something there. Maybe your thoughts could be generalized
like this: _Equity split should reflect the relationship of the co-founders._
(EDIT: I just saw you already wrote almost the same)

Friendship based on fairness typically consists of mutual respect and
confidence in each others capabilities and shortcomings. Such friends have
most certainly learned to appreciate their diversity and face another on an
equal footing. In this case, a uniform split would be a natural fit - anything
else would question the fairness of the relationship.

The problem I see is that even in long-time friendships it is not always clear
what type of relationship it is. I would claim that in every relationship, all
aspects (fairness, personal benefit and more) are present to some amount. And
as you say yourself, each member could understand the character of their
friendship differently.

The implication is: Before deciding how to split, find out in what kind of
relationship you are. A russian proverb comes to mind: _If you want to get to
know someone, go on a mountain hike with him._ My russian-speaking friend told
me that one, and in fact, we went to the mountains together. Almost died
several times. We know each other very well now :)

------
kevin_morrill
For partnerships where the contribution is at all close (i.e. +/- 10%), I
think a 50/50 split has the huge upside of getting both partners completely
focused on making the pie bigger. I'd much rather avoid quibbling over a few %
of share and get entirely focused on building a better business and also
feeling the personal pressure to be contributing my best.

If the contribution was wildly different, I think that's certainly a different
case.

~~~
hartror
Apart from a monetary contribution by a single co-founder I don't like to odds
of uneven ownerships working well. Too much opportunity for bad feelings to
develop on either side of the equation.

