Fair to reward founders with equity on performance than equal split?

Question

Forming a company with larger than usual founder base. When originally formed, we agreed with a near equal split with clift and vesting. Now it is being proposed to instead switch to a "reward" system, wherby founders are given more shares based on their value and contribution (which is highly subjective). Proposed that in each year and investment round, overall shares are diluted and more is given to those have placed in more effort, subsequntly reducing the stake of others. This is to be assed via some metrics through milestones or a KPI.This scheme is the first I have heard of it and I cannot find examples where it has been practiced (being successful or not).Has anyone done anything similar? Or perhaps advises for/against?Thanks

brudgers · Accepted Answer

If some founders are not adding sufficient value, the fair solution is buying them out at a fairly negotiated price.
The proposed scheme encourages little assholes to become bigger assholes and the slightly alienated to become totally alienated.
The biggest problem with the scheme is that it emphasizes "effort theater" over results.
In a healthy business relationship everyone's goal is to make everyone rich while becoming rich one's self.
An unhealthy business relationship is one in which people try to make themselves rich at the expense of the others.
Good luck.

partisan · Answer

I would start by kicking out the person who suggested this terrible idea. They are either naive or cunning. Either of those are dangerous for a new company.Beyond promoting a toxic culture, this will also result in people teaming up to push performance incentives their way. Like any other system, it can and will be gamed.

kulikalov · Answer

Do you have a PMF? Revenue? Active users?