The founder's partnership allowed him to build a company without shouldering the initial financial risk. This "halfsies on risk" structure meant he never had true control or ownership, ultimately capping his upside and leaving him with nothing. To get the full reward, you must take the full risk.
Related Insights
Co-founding a business is often harder than a marriage, yet receives far less diligence. The probability of two individuals maintaining perfect alignment on effort, finances, and vision over many years is incredibly low, making solo ventures statistically safer.
Unlike in private equity, an early-stage venture investment is a bet on the founder. If an early advisor, IP holder, or previous investor holds significant control, it creates friction and hinders the CEO's ability to execute. QED's experience shows that these situations are untenable and should be avoided.
Don't default to a 50/50 split on day one. Instead, agree to formally discuss equity only after reaching a predefined milestone, like $10,000 in revenue. This allows you to base the split on demonstrated contribution and commitment, avoiding the resentment from premature, misaligned agreements.
Believing the business would one day be his, the founder paid for hotels, tools, and other company expenses from his own pocket. This personal financial over-investment, without any formal ownership, is a red flag that you are acting like an owner without being compensated like one.
Kevin Bartlett's story shows how relying on a handshake deal with a trusted, older partner led to a complete loss of his expected multi-million dollar exit. Good intentions and personal relationships are not a substitute for formal contracts when business stakes are high.
A business transitions from a founder-dependent "practice" to a scalable "enterprise" only when the founder shares wealth and recognition. Failing to provide equity and public credit prevents attracting and retaining the talent needed for growth, as top performers will leave to become owners themselves.
Large, contrarian investments feel like career risk to partners in a traditional VC firm, leading to bureaucracy and diluted conviction. Founder-led firms with small, centralized decision-making teams can operate with more decisiveness, enabling them to make the bold, potentially firm-defining bets that consensus-driven partnerships would avoid.
The founders credit their successful partnership to an equal commitment to hard work. By dividing responsibilities and working independently before collaborating ('divide and conquer'), they ensure an even playing field and avoid the common pitfalls of co-founder burnout or resentment that often ruin business friendships.
The founder accepted below-market pay for years based on a vague verbal promise to be "treated right" later. This lack of specific terms for his sweat equity ultimately left him with no leverage and no payout, turning years of hard work into a costly lesson.
Granting a full co-founder 50% equity is a massive, often regrettable, early decision. A better model is to bring on a 'partner' with a smaller, vested equity stake (e.g., 10%). This provides accountability and complementary skills without sacrificing majority ownership and control.
