"threatened to quit and raise her own funding" unless equity was raised to 35%, that is very very hostile. - she only quit once they ran out of money., actions just speak louder than words for me.
I don't get it. This isn't MTV's The Real World: Tulsa Edition. She didn't like the deal she had. She told the founder, whose stake dwarfed hers, what her issue was. It didn't work out. She left.
What are you asking her to do? Stay on in an untenable situation? News flash for you: when you make a mistake signing on with a company, you aren't "honor-bound" to stay there until the situation plays itself out. If your situation sucks, leave. She did.
There's another unfortunate lesson here. When people threaten to quit, counteroffers are often a waste of time. People with MBAs will tell you not to make them at all. I've learned this the hard way; I got a really good offer in the middle of my last PM job, brought it up with my current company, and they upped my stake. But for the next 2 years, they were constantly on the defensive assuming I was going to quit again; it damaged the working relationship severely.
If you're a solid company, and someone gives you an ultimatum, a no-foul clean break is often going to be the right move. I wish it wasn't like that (I had no intention of quitting), but some political situations are untenable.
Just smells wrong, to take $6,900/mo + 6% (and agree to it) then for no reason demand more equity (which can't pay your bills) so basically the only reason to demand more equity is selfish-ness and you realize the founder is in a bad spot.
- She only left cause they were out of money, I suspect she would have rode that horse to death.
-I'm done debating; it was really fun, I got work to do; Im sure you do too... .rb
