I think the article is making the point that that is what they have traditionally been able to do but they no longer can. Since the magic drugs are giving people the will power to be able to make these changes.
You definitely (at least in the US) need income (or an income proxy like zip code). Mississippi has a life expectancy ~10 years less than Massachusettes.
This typically has surprisingly little impact on force of mortality.
Men under 40 essentially have incredibly low mortality. Once you exclude cars and suicide it drops basically to zero.
Even things that are very very bad for you, like being very obese (BMI>40), are factors that scale a mortality that is massively dominated by age and sex. Even 3x mortality at 25 rounds to zero. At 60 background become 1% per year and a 3x increase would make a huge difference.
I would wager $50 that there are no contiguous collection of zip codes in the USA where the average 40 year old has a higher life expectancy than the average 30 year old in any other contiguous set of zip codes assuming there are over 1000 people of that age in both.
If you have PMF, everyone staying behind is taking full market salaries and your valuation is based on a priced round then you should likely keep all your vested equity undiluted.
However, I assume that, as a pivot implies, you are pre-product market fit. In which case here are some questions to consider.
What is the value of the company after the pivot? How much of what was done pre-pivot has any relevance to the post-pivot company?
Is the startup valued at $20m or do you have SAFEs with a $20m cap? If the company is _worth_ $20m that means you've probably had a priced round and someone would likely pay $2m for your vested equity. Is that correct? Sell to them with a substantial, say ~50%, liquidity preference that goes to the Company (likely the Board's approval is required for a share transfer).
In large part the purpose of the SAFE is to avoid valuing the company. What valuation did you put on your 409A? Are you equating your "given a win-state valuation" (the cap) with your actual valuation (409A).
There is a Michael Seibel video where he talks about founder equity. In it he suggests that you should give back a lot of equity if pre product market fit as this will actually maximize your total return.
Remember if you raised $2m at $20m cap but have spent $1m your remaining co-founder is essentially taking $1m at $5m cap if compared to starting again (since they still have to hand over 10% to the investors and now they have to hand over 10% to you too but you spent $1m so they are giving up 20% for $1m).
Would it be more sensible for your co-founders to start a new company and offer the investors a substantial chunk or all of their remaining money back or to come with? Did they invest in them, you or both of you? In a liquidation how much would you get?
I would suggest that you should look to offer at least 90% of your vested equity to not have the remaining equity diluted. A good rule of thumb here would be what could you sell the company for today with no one staying (more than the a few months for minimal hand over) and divide the amount you raised by this number and this is the dilution you should be looking for.
Those are all folding/portable chairs, not fixed chairs. There are a few fixed benches built into the sidewalk in front of a few houses in my neighborhood, and 5 would apply to them. I'm also curious how this could be interpreted for someone who is merely a renter and not the private property owner.
edit: LOL they edited it out in response to my comment. There was a photo of a circle of folding chairs between the first selfie and the pancake party photo: https://i.imgur.com/Ygd8Of6.png
The difference is that the users buying the product (eye balls on search) value it differently. This means you can get your first 1m users without needing to be as much better (maybe you can even be worse) than Google as you would otherwise need to be.
It's a very interesting problem. When starting a company the biggest problem is often getting the first few users. One option is to build something people want - another is to build something your friends want - but another option is to build something the media wants to talk about.
I agree that Monarchs are great if they realise their long term legacy is best served by doing very little-to-nothing but still bringing the Prime Minister to account once a week (the A/UK/CA/NZ evolutionary model). However, even the ceremonial power is proving problematic in a world where the government of UK wants King of UK to have Trump for tea and the government of CA wants King of CA to spit in it.
Well, 52 weeks is 364 days, and a calendar year is 365.5±0.5 days, so if you are doing “years” by whole numbers of weeks and don't want to get more than a week out of sync with the regular civil calendar, you are going to need a 53 week year every few years, regardless of your start date.
One sec was great for breaking my YouTube shorts habit but the safari plugin only works 90% of the time and in some way the "gambling nature" of hitting reload and getting in sometimes has made it worse.
