All lessons
Lesson 24

Founders, equity splits & compensationModule 05 · Founders, governance & business assets

IGNITE EXTENDED / LESSON 24

Founders, equity splits & compensation

How should ownership and pay reflect future contribution and commitment?

A founder allocation rationale and compensation discussion brief.

1
24 / OpeningFounders, equity splits & compensation

The decision and the learning goals

  • Explain explicit criteria for a founder allocation
  • Separate current pay from long-term ownership incentives
  • Anticipate how a hire or changed commitment affects the agreement
90-minute workshopOpening 5 minConcepts and original examples 35 minPractice 25 minDebrief 15 minReview 10 min
2
24 / Module caseFounders, equity splits & compensation

OpenAI: when the governance structure decides who runs the company

OpenAI began as a nonprofit research lab and later added a capped-profit subsidiary that took billions in outside investment, while the nonprofit board kept control. On Friday, November 17, 2023, that board removed CEO Sam Altman. Investors, including Microsoft, had no board seat and no vote. Over the next four days Microsoft announced it would hire Altman, and roughly 97% of employees signed a letter threatening to leave unless the board resigned and reinstated him. On November 21 OpenAI announced Altman's return and a new initial board of Bret Taylor (chair), Larry Summers and Adam D'Angelo. Two years later, on October 28, 2025, OpenAI completed a recapitalization after nearly a year of dialogue with the California and Delaware attorneys general. The for-profit became OpenAI Group PBC, a public benefit corporation. The nonprofit, renamed the OpenAI Foundation, kept control and holds equity valued at about $130 billion; Microsoft holds about 27%. The episode separates economic ownership from control: who could fire the CEO, whose consent mattered in practice, and how the structure was redesigned afterward.

Sources: OpenAI reinstates Sam Altman as its chief executive (NPR via GPB, Nov 22, 2023) · Built to benefit everyone (OpenAI, Oct 28, 2025) · OpenAI restructures into public-benefit firm, Microsoft takes 27% stake (Al Jazeera, Oct 28, 2025)

In November 2023, who held formal authority over OpenAI's CEO, and who held practical leverage? What would you write into a startup's founder agreement, charter and board composition so that formal authority and practical leverage are not this far apart?

Module 05 case3 / 39
3
24 / TheoryFounders, equity splits & compensation

Founder contributions extend beyond the original idea

The founder material examines the people who supply the early work, capital, access and capabilities of a company. A founder title can carry expectations without resolving ownership, authority or future commitment. The NanoGene case makes these expectations concrete through differences in roles and contributions.

An equity discussion should distinguish past contributions from expected future work. The rationale needs to remain understandable if a person’s role changes. A split chosen only to end an uncomfortable conversation can preserve a conflict that later becomes more expensive.

4
24 / TheoryFounders, equity splits & compensation

Vesting addresses the passage of time

Equity granted for future work creates a problem when the work does not continue as expected. Vesting and departure provisions can connect ownership consequences to time or specified conditions. Their actual effect depends on the governing agreement and applicable rules.

Discuss departures before they become urgent. Consider voluntary departure, termination, disability and a change of control as distinct events. Acceleration provisions can change the consequences of an acquisition. The historical slides provide concepts for discussion, while current documents require situation-specific review.

5
24 / TheoryFounders, equity splits & compensation

A founder title and a founder contribution

An ownership discussion needs the actual contributions and expected commitments. A title does not specify time, resources, rights or future responsibility.

Title

A label with symbolic and organizational meaning.

Contribution

The work, commitment, assets and capabilities that the venture needs now and later.

Worked application

Illustrative application: one person contributes an early idea and works part time; another supplies critical licensed technology and joins full time; a third funds initial operations. A reasoned allocation considers what is contributed, whether it is transferable and what remains to be delivered.

Make the rationale explicit and examine how vesting and governance address uncertainty about future contribution.

6
24 / TheoryFounders, equity splits & compensation

Questions before dividing ownership

DimensionConversation
GoalsWhat does each person want to build and achieve?
CommitmentWho will contribute time, capital and specific work?
ScarcityWhich capabilities or assets are difficult to replace?
ChangeWhat happens when roles, availability or goals change?
Exit or conflictHow will departures and unresolved disagreements be handled?
7
24 / TheoryFounders, equity splits & compensation

Current pay and long-term equity

Cash compensation supports current work and consumes current cash. Equity links economic outcomes to future value and carries rights, dilution and uncertainty that need definition.

Salary

Can compensate for current work and living constraints, subject to the company’s resources.

Equity

Creates exposure to future value and incentives over time; its economic effect depends on terms and dilution.

Worked application

Illustrative application: a cash-constrained venture may offer lower salary and an equity award. Comparing that package with a salary-only job requires more than multiplying a headline percentage by a hoped-for exit. Examine the instrument, vesting, financing dilution and potential payout rules.

Separate affordability for the company from attractiveness to the person. The same package can be evaluated differently by each.

8
24 / TheoryFounders, equity splits & compensation

A split should have an explicit rationale

  • Equal shares can express equal expected contribution, but equality does not prove that assumption.
  • A differentiated split needs explainable criteria rather than bargaining power alone.
  • Future work can matter more than the original idea.
  • Discuss the reasoning before positions harden.
9
24 / Source pageFounders, equity splits & compensation

Single-trigger versus double-trigger acceleration

Single-trigger versus double-trigger acceleration; Reiss - Founder _ Equity Slides PDF page 25
Original page · S40 · PDF page 2510 / 39
10
24 / Source pageFounders, equity splits & compensation

Who is a co-founder, and what the people at incorporation decide

Who is a co-founder, and what the people at incorporation decide; Reiss - Founder _ Equity Slides PDF page 28
Original page · S40 · PDF page 2811 / 39
11
24 / Source pageFounders, equity splits & compensation

Ten conversation points before the split is final

Ten conversation points before the split is final; Reiss - Founder _ Equity Slides PDF page 32
Original page · S40 · PDF page 3212 / 39
12
24 / Source pageFounders, equity splits & compensation

NanoGene: one team, very different commitments

NanoGene: one team, very different commitments; Reiss - Founder _ Equity Slides PDF page 34
Original page · S40 · PDF page 3413 / 39
13
24 / Source pageFounders, equity splits & compensation

How many founders do startups have?

How many founders do startups have?; Reiss - Founder _ Equity Slides PDF page 35
Original page · S40 · PDF page 3514 / 39
14
24 / Source pageFounders, equity splits & compensation

Done versus to be done

Done versus to be done; Reiss - Founder _ Equity Slides PDF page 40
Original page · S40 · PDF page 4015 / 39
15
24 / Source pageFounders, equity splits & compensation

How founding teams actually split equity

How founding teams actually split equity; Reiss - Founder _ Equity Slides PDF page 41
Original page · S40 · PDF page 4116 / 39
16
24 / TheoryFounders, equity splits & compensation

Cash compensation and equity create different constraints

Cash compensation consumes current runway. Equity can preserve cash while transferring a share of future value and potentially other rights. Neither is costless. The appropriate comparison considers the role, the company’s resources and the person’s alternatives.

Early compensation also creates expectations for future hires and founders. Explain why roles differ and which contribution each arrangement is intended to support. Historical option-grant tables are examples of the period shown, not a universal schedule for current hiring.

17
24 / TheoryFounders, equity splits & compensation

A founder discussion needs a process for future disagreement

Initial agreement does not eliminate future differences about effort, strategy or fairness. A useful founder discussion covers decision rights, expected time commitment, personal goals and how the team will revisit a changed situation.

Separate ownership arithmetic from the underlying relationship. A mathematically correct percentage can still reflect an assumption about future work that the participants understand differently. Record those assumptions and establish a review process with appropriate professional documentation.

18
24 / TheoryFounders, equity splits & compensation

Vesting connects ownership and time

Vesting addresses what happens to an equity award as a person continues contributing or leaves. This is a conceptual sequence, and actual outcomes depend on the agreement.

01

Grant & terms

Specify the award, relevant dates and conditions. A headline percentage leaves the instrument, denominator, service requirements and departure treatment unclear.

02

Continued contribution

Rights become vested under the agreed schedule or conditions. Distinguish the economic expectation from the legal mechanism and from any separate performance or exercise requirements.

03

Departure

Inspect the actual provisions for vested and unvested interests, exercise and repurchase. Departure is precisely where assumptions about “my shares” can produce incompatible expectations.

04

Review the arrangement

Check whether the documents reflect the intended contribution and governance. When circumstances change, seek appropriate review rather than assuming a prior informal discussion settles every right.

Vesting is one element of a wider founder arrangement involving contribution, control, pay and future financing. A fair rationale needs all of these in view.

19
24 / Deep diveFounders, equity splits & compensation

Relay's founder vesting and the 83(b) decision in numbers

Both founders: 4-year monthly vesting, 1-year cliff, purchase at an illustrative $0.0001 per share.

Unvested shares are owned but subject to the company's right to repurchase them at the original price if the founder leaves. The cliff means a departure before month 12 forfeits everything; after it, vesting accrues monthly.

With an 83(b) election filed within 30 days of the stock transfer, the founder recognizes income at purchase equal to fair market value minus the price paid, about $0 here. Later appreciation is generally capital gain, and the holding period starts at purchase. Without it, each tranche is ordinary income at its value when it vests.

Illustrative cost of skipping the election: if common stock is valued at $0.30 when Maya's cliff tranche of 1,300,000 shares vests, she recognizes 1,300,000 x ($0.30 - $0.0001) = $389,870 of ordinary income without having sold anything. Application depends on current tax law and each founder's facts; counsel and a tax adviser must confirm.

MayaDaniel
Shares (split)5,200,000 (52%)4,800,000 (48%)
Monthly vesting after cliff108,333100,000
Vested if leaves at month 1100
Vested at month 12 (cliff)1,300,0001,200,000
Vested if leaves at month 181,950,0001,800,000
Repurchasable at month 183,250,0003,000,000
Post-seed fully diluted %30.41%28.07%

Priya's 300,000 options are not founder stock: she receives the right to buy at an exercise price set at grant, with different tax timing. Her grant is 1.75% post-seed and 1.40% post-Series A.

20
24 / TheoryFounders, equity splits & compensation

Compensation also sends an organizational signal

  • Who is paid first and why?
  • How are role differences explained?
  • What can the company afford?
  • What expectations will future hires and investors infer?
21
24 / TheoryFounders, equity splits & compensation

Hire a senior generalist?

Hiring a senior executive makes sense when a defined operating problem requires the relevant capability. A prestigious title does not establish fit with the company’s stage.

Potential benefit

Establishes processes, fills unknown gaps and frees specialists for essential technical work.

Potential cost

Consumes scarce cash and equity; creates role and compensation comparisons the founders must explain.

Worked application

Illustrative application: a small engineering team might need a leader who can personally establish the first sales process. A manager skilled at operating a large established department may require systems and specialists the venture cannot yet support. Examine the work to be done and the resources available.

Tie the role, decision authority and compensation to observable responsibilities and the next operating milestone.

22
24 / TheoryFounders, equity splits & compensation

A founder agreement is a continuing governance tool

  • Roles and contributions can change.
  • Define how changes are discussed and documented.
  • Separate fairness judgments from the arithmetic of share counts.
  • Make difficult departure conversations possible before they are urgent.
23
24 / Source pageFounders, equity splits & compensation

The idea premium: what being the idea person is worth

The idea premium: what being the idea person is worth; Reiss - Founder _ Equity Slides PDF page 43
Original page · S40 · PDF page 4324 / 39
24
24 / Source pageFounders, equity splits & compensation

Founder cash pay: below market and often unequal

Founder cash pay: below market and often unequal; Reiss - Founder _ Equity Slides PDF page 47
Original page · S40 · PDF page 4725 / 39
25
24 / Source pageFounders, equity splits & compensation

Large founding teams and the economic advantages of founder status

Large founding teams and the economic advantages of founder status; Reiss - Founder _ Equity Slides PDF page 51
Original page · S40 · PDF page 5126 / 39
26
24 / Original readingFounders, equity splits & compensation

Reiss - NanoGene Technologies (1)

PDF page 2
Reiss - NanoGene Technologies (1); PDF page 2
PDF page 3
Reiss - NanoGene Technologies (1); PDF page 3

Click either page to read it at full size. In the reader, use ← → to switch between these two pages.

Original archive · S41 · PDF pages 2 & 3 · Historical material; current application requires review27 / 39
27
24 / Original readingFounders, equity splits & compensation

Reiss - NanoGene Technologies (1)

PDF page 4
Reiss - NanoGene Technologies (1); PDF page 4
PDF page 5
Reiss - NanoGene Technologies (1); PDF page 5

Click either page to read it at full size. In the reader, use ← → to switch between these two pages.

Original archive · S41 · PDF pages 4 & 5 · Historical material; current application requires review28 / 39
28
24 / Original readingFounders, equity splits & compensation

Reiss - NanoGene Technologies (1)

PDF page 6
Reiss - NanoGene Technologies (1); PDF page 6
PDF page 7
Reiss - NanoGene Technologies (1); PDF page 7

Click either page to read it at full size. In the reader, use ← → to switch between these two pages.

Original archive · S41 · PDF pages 6 & 7 · Historical material; current application requires review29 / 39
29
24 / Reading debriefFounders, equity splits & compensation

NanoGene: contributions and expectations / summary

Selected reading: PDF pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

The selected case pages place an academically trained founding team in a negotiation over ownership, compensation and missing operating capability. Several reasonable definitions of fairness produce different proposed arrangements.

  • A founding rationale

    The team chooses equal ownership and intended equal pay to recognize a shared beginning and protect cohesion.

  • An operating gap

    Paige Miller brings experience in manufacturing and other company functions. The founders want help with work that allows them to concentrate on the science.

  • External expectations

    Prospective investors question the size and business experience of the founding team and the relationship between roles, equity and salary.

  • Financing changes the allocation

    New money, licensed IP and an option pool affect the ownership available to founders and recruits. Each percentage needs a defined stage and denominator.

Reading debrief · S41 · PDF pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 730 / 39
30
24 / Reading debriefFounders, equity splits & compensation

NanoGene: contributions and expectations / discussion

Selected reading: PDF pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Critical points

Several fairness criteria

Equality, prior contribution, market alternatives and future responsibility are different principles. Identify the principle behind each position before negotiating a number.

Historical compensation

The case reports period-specific salary and equity views. Use them to analyze the disagreement rather than present them as current hiring benchmarks.

A complete arrangement

Ownership, pay, authority and continued contribution interact. Settling one headline percentage can leave the most important expectation unresolved.

Reading debrief · S41 · PDF pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 731 / 39
31
24 / ApplicationFounders, equity splits & compensation

NanoGene: equal founders, different commitments

The archived case describes a scientific founding team with different roles and time commitments. Recruiting an experienced operations executive raises questions about salary, post-financing equity and how those choices fit the founders’ expectations.

Which criteria should govern founder ownership and the new hire’s package?

32
24 / Current practiceFounders, equity splits & compensation

Current practice: founder stock elections and tax rules (2024-2026)

A standard 83(b) form and online filing

The IRS released Form 15620 in late 2024 as a standardized Section 83(b) election, and in 2025 enabled electronic submission through an IRS online account. The 30-day deadline from the stock transfer is unchanged, and a copy still goes to the company. Choose one filing method and keep proof of timely filing.

QSBS is more generous for stock acquired after July 4, 2025

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act changed Section 1202 for qualified small business stock acquired after July 4, 2025. Partial gain exclusion now starts after three years (50%), rising to 75% after four and 100% after five. The per-issuer cap rose to the greater of $15 million or 10x basis, and the corporation's gross-asset limit rose to $75 million. QSBS applies only to stock of a domestic C corporation, which links this lesson to L25's entity choice. Eligibility depends on current law and facts.

Equal splits are becoming more common

Carta's 2025 founder ownership report found that 45.9% of two-founder startups split equity equally in 2024, up from 31.5% in 2015. Among three-founder teams the share rose from 12.1% to 26.9%. An equal split is now common, but it still needs a reason.

Sources: Say Goodbye to Paper Cuts: Section 83(b) Elections May Now Be Filed Online (Morrison Foerster, 2025) · Unlocking Tax Planning Efficiency: The New Era of Online Section 83(b) Elections (Troutman Pepper Locke, Aug 2025) · IRS Form 15620, Section 83(b) Election · The One Big Beautiful Bill Act Expands QSBS Benefits (Cooley, Jul 2025) · Changes to IRC Section 1202 under OBBBA (Kutak Rock, Jul 2025) · Founder Ownership Report (Carta)

33
24 / PracticeFounders, equity splits & compensation

Write the rationale before choosing percentages

Fictional adaptation: one founder is full-time CEO, one is a full-time scientist, and one is an advisor one day a week. All contributed to the idea. The company wants an experienced operations hire but has limited cash.

Your task

Propose allocation criteria, distinguish salary from equity, and list the questions needed before setting percentages. Do not assume there is one correct split.

34
24 / DebriefFounders, equity splits & compensation

Worked answer and reasoning

  • Compare expected future work, commitment, scarce contributions and risks; the original idea alone is incomplete.
  • Discuss current cash compensation separately from long-term incentives and vesting.
  • Make departure, role change and future dilution part of the conversation before agreeing to a fixed allocation.
35
24 / Venture stepFounders, equity splits & compensation

Venture step: Relay's founder split, vesting and Priya's grant

Relay · venture step 24

Relay incorporates with 10,000,000 common shares: Maya 5,200,000 (52%), Daniel 4,800,000 (48%). Maya lived the problem, recruited the 3 pilot clinics and went full-time two months before Daniel. Both take 4-year vesting with a 1-year cliff and file 83(b) elections. A 1,000,000-share option pool is reserved at the pre-seed SAFE. In month 9 Priya Raman joins as Head of Growth with a 300,000-share option grant; two engineers receive 50,000 each, so 400,000 are granted before the seed.

Your task

Write a one-page founder allocation brief: the rationale for 52/48, the vesting schedule with numbers, what happens if either founder leaves at month 11 or month 18, the 83(b) decision, and Priya's grant expressed as a percentage after the seed and Series A.

Relay · illustrative venture36 / 39
36
24 / Venture stepFounders, equity splits & compensation

Venture step: worked reasoning

  • Rationale: the 4-point premium pays for done work (customer insight, pilot clinics, two months' head start). The other 96% of the split pays for work still to be done, where both founders are full-time and roughly equally hard to replace. The gap is small enough that neither founder reads it as a senior/junior partnership.
  • Vesting: Daniel vests 4,800,000 / 48 = 100,000 shares a month, Maya 5,200,000 / 48 = 108,333. With a 1-year cliff, nothing vests until month 12, when 25% vests at once (Daniel 1,200,000; Maya 1,300,000). If Daniel leaves at month 11, the company can repurchase all 4,800,000 at his original price. At month 18 he keeps 18/48 = 1,800,000 vested shares and the company can repurchase 3,000,000.
  • 83(b): founders buy at a near-zero fair market value, so electing within 30 days of the stock transfer means about $0 of ordinary income now, and later appreciation is generally taxed as capital gain. Without the election, each vesting tranche is ordinary income at its value on that date. At an illustrative $0.30 per share at Maya's cliff, that is 1,300,000 x ($0.30 - $0.0001) = $389,870 of income with no cash to pay the tax.
  • Priya: 300,000 options are 300,000 / 17,102,041 = 1.75% of the post-seed fully diluted count and 1.40% after the Series A (x 0.8). All 400,000 granted options are 2.34% post-seed. Her grant is an option with an exercise price, not founder stock, and her title is Head of Growth, not co-founder.
  • Departure and acceleration: specify double-trigger acceleration (change of control plus termination without cause within 12 months) for both founders, the repurchase price for unvested shares, and a review of roles at the seed. Legal and tax application depends on current law and the facts, so counsel must review the documents.
Relay · illustrative venture37 / 39
37
24 / DebriefFounders, equity splits & compensation

Reasoning traps

Missing the 83(b) deadline

The election must reach the IRS within 30 days of the stock transfer, and late elections are not accepted. Missing it can turn every vesting tranche into ordinary income at a value no founder can pay tax on.

Granting percentages instead of shares

Promising Priya '2%' leaves the denominator undefined. Grant a fixed share count (300,000) and show what it means after the seed (1.75%) and the A (1.40%).

Treating the split as the protection

Arguing over 50/50 versus 52/48 while leaving out the cliff, repurchase price or acceleration terms protects no one. Vesting and departure terms decide what happens when commitment changes; the split does not.

38
24 / ReviewFounders, equity splits & compensation

What you can now explain

Relay's founder allocation brief: the 52/48 rationale, both vesting schedules with month-11 and month-18 departure outcomes, the 83(b) decision, and Priya's grant in shares and as a percentage after the seed and Series A.

  • A split needs a stated rationale that weighs work done against work still to be done, which is almost always the larger share.
  • Vesting, the cliff and acceleration terms, not the headline percentage, govern what happens when a founder's commitment changes.
  • Founder stock with a timely 83(b) election and employee options differ sharply in tax timing; application depends on current law and individual facts.

Next lesson: Company formation & governance questions

39