> Fundamentally, we are here because companies are choosing to stay private significantly longer than the time period for which the four-year option vesting program was originally invented... Matching vesting more closely to the IPO time frame for companies [6-8 years] makes logical sense...
It would be more logical to stick with four years and let employees participate in the huge "private IPO" rounds. This would provide liquidity in roughly the same timeframe as before. Companies are not staying private longer because they need more time to mature, they're doing it because the private markets are favorable. So treat those like the IPO surrogates they are and let employees sell options.
(Note, this would have none of the cap table messiness of secondary sales.)
It would be more logical to stick with four years and let employees participate in the huge "private IPO" rounds. This would provide liquidity in roughly the same timeframe as before. Companies are not staying private longer because they need more time to mature, they're doing it because the private markets are favorable. So treat those like the IPO surrogates they are and let employees sell options.
(Note, this would have none of the cap table messiness of secondary sales.)