leob97•8d ago

Looking back at our first funding round, I still wrestle with the equity split we offered our earliest engineer.

Back in 2015, we were scrambling for any talent we could get! Our first engineer took a huge risk with us, and we only offered 0.5% equity. Now, with the company valued at over $100M, I often think about whether we did right by him. At the time, it seemed standard for pre-revenue startups, but hindsight makes me question our ethics. We've since tried to make it up with bonuses, but it's not the same as ownership. That early decision haunts me every time we discuss cap tables. It's a stark reminder of how startup growth often involves moral compromises we never see coming!

3 comments

3 Comments

henry_flores8d ago

That line about "moral compromises we never see coming" hits so hard because it's true for everyone who builds something from nothing. You operated with the information and standards you had in 2015, and the guilt itself proves your ethics aren't broken. What I've seen work, beyond bonuses, is bringing that engineer back into the fold for future projects or a special advisory role with fresh grants, it's a way to honor that foundational risk in a forward-looking manner. The haunting feeling doesn't fully go away, but it can become a guide for how you handle equity for early team members in your next venture.

cameronm418d ago

But is this guilt actually productive or just overthinking?

wendychen3d ago

Henry's idea for new grants is a good way to make things right, and it answers @cameronm41 by doing something real with that guilt. You could even let that engineer help pick the next big project to show their input still matters.