[sultanofswing]

Wholeheartedly agree. I really don't see any rational basis for this, and it feels like a huge waste of emotional energy.

I guess it would be good to know: What is the good faith argument for detractors in this case? (assuming that in the 50/50 split there is a tiebreaking vote like in our case)

[gms]

Some arguments here from a bygone era (none are convincing to me): https://hbr.org/2016/02/the-very-first-mistake-most-startup-....

We have the same model as you at the company I co-founded. The only valid worry that comes to my mind is a 50-50 split with no person designated as the boss. But you already have that part sorted.

[sultanofswing]

Yeah and this is where I honestly don't understand (and am suspicious of) the VC firm's take on this.

My cofounder is happy with this, I'm happy with this. We have tiebreaking and vesting built into the equation so there's no gridlock and no one can leave the company high and dry. And neither one of has complaints about each others' commitment (nights weekends, etc you name it we are "all in" and that is our expectation).

Furthermore we worked nights and weekends on this as a "project" for months before even incorporating so did not go into the equity split just on a whim.

It seems like in the cited examples all of these things were missing on some level. TLDR if someone isn't performing and there is cause to fire them that already exists and shifts the power balance significantly towards the CEO.