The article emphasises the importance of equity (for a founder) but I'd be happy with 10% of $100 million as opposed to 90% of $10,000.
Surely a more important (but perhaps slightly more subtle) point is that VCs will perhaps impose additional constraints on the company. A good example is bringing in a new "business savvy" CEO (and/or board of directors) to potentially replace you.
Are there any legal tools that allow a founder to maintain control of the company (in a voting sense) even if the VC firm wants 50% or more equity?
If Sequoia invested in your startup and asked for 50% would YOU complain?
1 comment
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 6.2 ms ] threadSurely a more important (but perhaps slightly more subtle) point is that VCs will perhaps impose additional constraints on the company. A good example is bringing in a new "business savvy" CEO (and/or board of directors) to potentially replace you.
Are there any legal tools that allow a founder to maintain control of the company (in a voting sense) even if the VC firm wants 50% or more equity?
If Sequoia invested in your startup and asked for 50% would YOU complain?