The vesting schedule isn't a formality. It's a statement about what you think everyone's contribution is actually worth.
Equity splits get debated. Vesting schedules get signed. The question most founders skip: does that structure keep everyone motivated, or does it quietly ignore what someone actually put in?
I've seen what happens when the answer is no.
As a startup attorney, I work on business divorces. And one of the most reliable causes? Co-founders who signed a standard 4-year / 1-year cliff schedule without ever asking whether it actually fit their situation.
Here's what that conversation should look like:
How long should vesting run? Whatever feels fair and keeps everyone hungry. Usually 2–5 years, most often 3–4. But "standard" isn't always right.
Sometimes non-standard is the honest answer. One founder worked on this for a year before anyone else showed up. Another is putting in real cash while others aren't. Someone is starting part-time. One person is clearly the lead — the idea, the IP, the seed money. These aren't edge cases. They're common. And a one-size schedule papers over all of it.
Acquisition acceleration is underused. Full or partial vesting acceleration on exit gives everyone a concrete reason to push for the best outcome. Worth adding.
None of this matters without documentation. A shared understanding about equity means nothing once serious money is involved. I've watched handshake deals turn into litigation that destroyed the company — and the relationships — entirely.
The vesting schedule isn't a formality. It's a statement about what you think everyone's contribution is actually worth.
Get it right before resentment does it for you.
What's the co-founder issue you've seen cause the most damage? Would love to hear in the comments.
Disclaimer: This article constitutes attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. MGLS publishes this article for information purposes only. Nothing within is intended as legal advice.