[shankspeaks]

If you're not valuing the equity if you're not involved, then honestly you need to look at this from an opportunity cost perspective.

The trust is fundamentally broken, so it's not really worthwhile to pursue this as collaborators. Unless you're keen to run the business yourself, there isn't much point in fighting this beyond getting your 1st year vesting.

It's honestly not worth your time and energy fighting for something you're not keen to do. And it's definitely cheaper for them to give you 7% more than the 3% offered, and avoid all this hassle and potential legal expense.

If you do want to persist, then you need the investor on your side, as otherwise you can't force the other person out (they'd still keep their 10% but that's the price you pay for that move).

I have to say I find it really odd that someone who's invested $100k is being silent on this, or isn't worried about this situation, especially if the future of the business is now more of a lifestyle business. I fail to see how they'd get a return they'd expect. I'd assume they're actually on the other side, but want to appear neutral.

FWIW if you end up leaving, I'd advise not agreeing to a non-compete or a non-disclosure. It's not about you starting a competitor, but more about them not being able to restrict your future options as they're forcing you out, and they will have to potentially consider the threat of you competing with them at any point in the future.

It's a credit to your efforts that you've built the tech of business that's gotten such good traction and numbers, so you've got learnings and experience that will serve you in good stead in the future.

It's just unfortunate that you ended up with such shitty partners.

Good luck, and I assume quite a few of us will be hoping you bounce back from this, and rooting for you.