Determining the equity distribution between co-founders is a critical step that requires careful consideration. Here's how you can justify holding 51% equity based on your contributions and goals:
Technical Foundation and Completed Product: You have invested a significant amount of time and effort in developing the application, which has already passed the MVP stage and is ready for use. This substantial contribution provides the groundwork for further development and marketing efforts.
Maintaining Control: Holding 51% equity allows you to retain control over strategic decisions within the company. This is crucial to ensure that your vision and goals continue to drive the direction of the business.
Division of Responsibilities: Considering that your potential co-founders will primarily focus on marketing and business development, their contributions will be highly valuable. However, this does not diminish the importance of your technical input and development expertise.
Management Flexibility: Retaining a controlling interest (51%) also gives you the final say in case of disagreements. This is important for effective management and conflict resolution.
Motivation and Balance: Co-founders should be adequately motivated to work on the project, so they should receive a significant equity share. This can be around 20-25% each, which collectively totals 49%, leaving you with 51%.
An example of equity distribution could be:
You (Founder and Developer) - 51%
Co-founder 1 (Marketing and Business Development) - 24.5%
Co-founder 2 (Marketing and Business Development) - 24.5%
This distribution ensures that you retain control over the company while providing significant motivation and involvement for your co-founders. It is also essential to formalize all agreements in a legally binding contract that outlines each participant's contributions and mechanisms for conflict resolution.
I agree completely that discussing the size of KPIs without considering the company's strategy and its Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is meaningless. KPIs cannot be isolated metrics; they must be directly related to overall goals and strategic directions of the company. Without understanding what specific aspects of the business and tasks these indicators reflect, discussing their size becomes a futile activity.
Balanced Scorecards provide a holistic view of how different aspects of a company's activities relate to each other and to the overall strategy. They help identify causal relationships between different indicators and goals. It's important for leaders not only to define KPIs but also to clearly explain the logic behind their formation to KPI owners, and to demonstrate how these metrics fit into the context of the strategy and the BSC.
Unfortunately, a lack of information and understanding of this logic can lead to misinterpreting KPIs and, consequently, to misaligned behavior or a focus on irrelevant metrics. Therefore, it's crucial for leadership to actively educate KPI owners and help them see the bigger picture — how their work contributes to the achievement of the company's overall objectives.
I have a subjective opinion that it is not really a programming language. Rather, it is a language for modeling business logic. I know about its existence more than 10 years, I did not understand many things at once, but over time I began to apply it in my practice of modeling systems. The fact that V. Paronjanov was not able to develop Dragon language to the final language with all the necessary attributes, does not say at all about the unsuccessful...
V. Paronjanov is a genius, but not every genius has a genius team...
That said, the books he has written over the years will leave a fundamental mark on system logic design! I also consider G. Altshuler with his Theory of Invention Problem Solving a worthy genius, after his death he received recognition in the face of experts all over the world.
ChatGPT 3.5 in response to a brief analysis of the community gave out:
"It seems like the conversation you provided is discussing the idea of compressing prompts or summaries of larger documents in order to fit them into a smaller context. While the idea has potential, it appears that people have had difficulty reproducing it and that lookup tables and external storage of memory may be more effective in the long term. Additionally, there is discussion about the possibility of greatly increasing context size in the future, with the example given that there was an almost 10x jump between GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4 in terms of token capacity."
Of course, you can monitor the information transactions of the person making or influencing the decision and the transactions of companies that are currently in a contractual relationship or are bidding for a contract.
